Research Report Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Social and Psychological Research (PSYC7022/ PSYC7023A) in the Department of Psychology, School of Human and Community Development, Faculty of Humanities, at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Hope and Optimism: An Application of the Best Possible Self Intervention By Wilhemina Kgomotso Ramanyatsa Student Number: 441826 Supervised by Dr Aline Ferreira-Correia Submitted on: 22 December 2021 Word Count: 22346 1 Masters in Social and Psychological Research – Research Report Declaration Surname: Ramanyatsa First name/s: Wilhemina Kgomotso Student no.: 441826 Supervisor: Dr Aline Ferreira-Correia Title: Hope and Optimism: An Application of the Best Possible Self Intervention Declaration I, Wilhemina Kgomotso Ramanyatsa, know and accept that plagiarism (i.e., to use another’s work and to pretend that it is one’s own) is wrong. Consequently, I declare that • The research report is my own work. • I understand what plagiarism is, and the importance of clearly and appropriately acknowledging my sources. • I understand that questions about plagiarism can arise in any piece of work I submit, regardless of whether that work is to be formally assessed or not. • I understand that a proper paraphrase or summary of ideas/ content from a particular source should be written in my own words with my own sentence structure and be accompanied by an appropriate reference. • I have correctly acknowledged all direct quotations and paraphrased ideas/ content by way of appropriate, APA-style in-text references. • I have provided a complete, alphabetized reference list, as required by the APA method of referencing. • I understand that anti-plagiarism software (e.g. Turnitin) is a useful resource, but that such software does not provide definitive proof that a document is free of plagiarism. • I have not allowed, and will not allow anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her work. • I am aware of and familiar with the University of the Witwatersrand’s policy on plagiarism. • I understand that the University of the Witwatersrand may take disciplinary action against me if there is a belief that this is not my own unaided work, or that I failed to acknowledge the source of the ideas or words in my writing. Signed: Date: 22 December 2021 2 Acknowledgements This research report would not have been possible without the immense support I received. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Aline Ferreira-Correia. Thank you for your invaluable guidance and support in all the stages of the project. The research challenges encountered were overcome due to your constant recommendations. The constructive criticism you provided made me appreciate the Master’s journey beyond the attainment of a degree, as a process of learning and self-discovery. I am very thankful to Mr Ian Siemers for taking the time to share his expertise and advice which reignited my interest in positive psychology. I am also grateful to Mrs Lynne Goldschmidt and Dr Sifiso Mlilo for their assistance with access to participants for the collection of additional data. To the participants, who showed great interest and took the time to take part in the study, thank you for your commitment and co-operation. To my family, your efforts to create a conducive environment for me to reach the finish line and your words of encouragement sustained me. With God nothing is impossible. 3 Abstract Psychological Capital (PsyCap) has emerged as a valuable resource for organisational and academic performance. Based on both positive psychology and Positive Organisational Behaviour (POB), PsyCap consists of efficacy, resilience, hope, and optimism. Hope and optimism are acknowledged in the literature as beneficial for student performance and university adjustment, respectively. Hence the study examines PsyCap with a focus on developing hope and optimism in university students for academic and professional advancement, using a tailored Best Possible Self (BPS) intervention that incorporates smart goal setting. The effect of the intervention on levels of hope, optimism and overall PsyCap, and perceptions of its contribution and delivery is assessed. The mixed methods research approach employed entails a quasi-experiment and follow-up semi-structured interviews. The experimental condition comprises the BPS intervention and the control condition involves the Daily Activities (DA) task. A sample of 30 students was randomly assigned to the experimental (N=14) and control group (N=16) and measures of PsyCap were taken before and after the intervention or task. A sample of 6 students who completed the BPS intervention took part in the interviews. The mixed model ANOVA results show that the effect of the current BPS on hope, optimism, and PsyCap is not statistically significant. The outcomes from the semi- structured interviews offer a positive perspective of an intervention with the potential to impact valuable psychological constructs which can be explored in future research. The qualitative findings and design considerations provide possible explanations for the main findings. The research has practical implications and recommendations are presented for future research and to enhance the BPS intervention. 4 Table of Contents Declaration……………………………………………………………………………………1 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….......2 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….3 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..9 2. Literature Review………………………………………………………………………...11 2.1. Positive Organisational Behaviour…………………………………………….11 2.2. Psychological Capital…………………………………………………………...14 2.2.1. Self-Efficacy…………………………………………………………..15 2.2.2. Resilience……………………………………………………………...15 2.2.3. Hope…………………………………………………………………...16 2.2.4. Optimism……………………………………………………………...17 2.3. Hope and Optimism in Academia……………………………………………...18 2.4. Psychological Capital Potential and Limitations……………………………...20 2.4.1. Conservation of Resources Theory and PsyCap…………………….21 2.4.2. PsyCap Measure……………………………………………………...23 2.4.3. PsyCap Development………………………………………………....25 2.4.4. Interaction between PsyCap Capacities…………………………….30 2.5. Best Possible Self………………………………………………………………..33 2.6. Rationale, Research Aims, Research Questions………………………………35 2.6.1. Rationale………………………………………………………………35 2.6.2. Research Aims………………………………………………………...36 2.6.3. Research Questions…………………………………………………...36 3. Method…………………………………………………………………………………….37 5 3.1. Sample…………………………………………………………………………...37 3.2. Procedure……………………………………………………………………….38 3.3. Measures………………………………………………………………………...42 3.3.1. Demographic Information…………………………………………...42 3.3.2. PCQ-24 ………………………………………………………………..42 3.3.3. Interviews……………………………………………………………..42 3.4. Research Design………………………………………………………………...43 3.5. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………45 3.5.1. The Effect of the BPS intervention on Hope, Optimism, and Overall PsyCap……………………………………………………………………….45 3.5.2. An Evaluation of the Process of the Intervention……………………45 3.6. Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………45 4. Results……………………………………………………………………………………..47 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Gender, Race, Age, Home Language…………………………………………………………………………….47 4.2. Psychometric Statistics…………………………………………………………48 4.3. Description of the Pre-test and Post-test PsyCap Variables………………….50 4.4. Assumptions of Main Analyses………………………………………………...51 4.5. Main Analyses…………………………………………………………………..55 4.5.1. Effect of the BPS Intervention on Levels of Hope...............................55 4.5.2. Effect of the BPS Intervention on Levels of Optimism.......................56 4.5.3. Effect of the BPS Intervention on Levels of Overall PsyCap (Hope, Self-Efficacy, Resilience, and Optimism) .....................................................56 4.6. Summary of Quantitative Results……………………………………………...57 4.7. Qualitative Analysis…………………………………………………………….57 6 4.7.1. Theme 1: Understanding BPS Intervention…………………………57 4.7.2. Theme 2: Utility of BPS Intervention……………………………….61 4.7.3. Theme 3: Key (Unique Points) ……………………………………….63 4.7.4. Theme 4: Recommended Aspect of BPS Intervention………………64 4.7.5. Theme 5: BPS Intervention Areas of Improvement………………...65 4.8. Summary of Qualitative Results……………………………………………….67 5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………68 5.1. Effect of BPS intervention on levels of hope, optimism, and overall PsyCap (hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism) …………………………………….68 5.2. Perceptions of students in terms of the manner in which the intervention was delivered and its contribution?..................................................................................70 5.3. Quantitative and Qualitative Findings………………………………………...72 5.4. Implications……………………………………………………………………..73 5.5. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research……………………73 Reference List……………………………………………………………………………….77 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………..91 Appendix A: BPS Intervention Programme……………………………………….92 Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet (Questionnaire)…………………….93 Appendix C: Consent Form (Questionnaire)………………………………………95 Appendix D: BPS and DA Intervention Video Presentations……………………..96 Appendix E: BPS Intervention Worksheets……………………………………….97 Appendix F: DA Worksheet ………………………………………………………102 Appendix G: Participant Information Sheet (Interview)………………………..104 Appendix H: Consent Form (Interview)………………………………………….106 Appendix I: Permission to Use PCQ-24…………………………………………..107 7 Appendix J: Demographic Questionnaire and Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24)…………………………………………………………...108 Appendix K: PCQ-24 Adaptation………………………………………...............110 Appendix L: Interview Schedule………………………………………………….111 Appendix M: Interview Transcripts……………………………………...............112 Appendix N: Ethics Clearance Certificate………………………………………..127 Appendix O: Request for Permission to Access Student Sample ………………128 Appendix P: Box Plots……………………………………………………………..130 List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of POB and POS…………………………………………….12 Table 2: PCI Studies………………………………………………………………...27 Table 3: Sample Demographic Characteristics: Gender, Race and Home Language…………………………………………………………………………….48 Table 4: Reliability of Scales………………………………………………………..49 Table 5: Mean Inter-Item Correlations…………………………………………….50 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………51 Table 7: Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality…………………………………………..53 Table 8: Test of Homogeneity of Variances………………………………………...54 Table 9: Mixed Model ANOVA (Hope)…………………………………………….55 Table 10: Mixed Model ANOVA (Optimism)……………………………...............56 Table 11: Mixed Model ANOVA (PsyCap)………………………………...............57 8 List of Figures Figure 1: Psychological Capital Intervention: Developmental Dimensions and Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………….31 Figure 2: Process for BPS Intervention…………………………………………….40 Figure 3: Process for DA Intervention……………………………………………..41 Figure 4: Model of Mixed Methods Design and its Components………………….44 9 1. Introduction The aim of positive psychology is to begin to catalyze a change in the focus of psychology from preoccupation only with repairing the worst things in life to also building positive qualities. (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5) The underlying philosophy of positive psychology accentuates positivity and success by exhorting the strengthening of capacities of individuals for optimal functioning (Seligman, 2002). Similarly, Positive Organisational Behaviour (POB) is “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement…” (Luthans, 2002a, p.59). This definition characterises POB as an approach that focuses on positive resources that can be studied quantitatively and enhanced for positive outcomes such as performance (Avey, Luthans, Smith & Palmer, 2010). Furthermore, POB extends beyond the exclusive examination of strengths and capacities. It also heeds the call of positive psychology through the application of positive constructs to the workplace (Luthans & Avolio, 2009). Both the fields of positive psychology and POB are dedicated to development. Consequently, Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is a concept formed as a manifestation of the two areas (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). PsyCap emerged as a framework relevant to organisations and employees for improving performance (Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). The applicability of this concept and the development of the resource has expanded to settings such as educational, due to its contribution to academic performance (Luthans, Luthans & Jensen, 2012; Luthans, Luthans, & Palmer, 2016). Broadly, PsyCap is concerned with “‘who you are’ and more importantly ‘who you are becoming’ (i.e., developing one’s actual self to become the possible self)” (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006, p. 388). Specifically, who you can become if your positive psychological resources are enhanced (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). This perspective underscores the developmental aspect of PsyCap (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,). Correspondingly, PsyCap involves four dimensions namely, self-efficacy, resilience, hope, and optimism, that are malleable (Luthans, 2002b). The last two dimensions of hope and optimism are considered significant capacities in the classroom (Bressler et al., 2010; Snyder, Shorey et al., 2002). 10 Hope and optimism entail an expectation of positive outcomes in the future (Feldman & Kubota, 2015). Except for the similarity, hope takes a step further to involve a plan to achieve the outcomes (Snyder, Rand & Sigmon, 2002). Students with higher levels of hope perform better and may be able to conceptualize their goals (Snyder, 1994). On the other hand, optimism in students promotes adjustment to university life (Perera & McIlveen, 2014; Morton et al., 2014). Thus, both capacities contribute positively to the challenging journey of a student (see Seabi, Seedat, Khoza-Shangase & Sullivan, 2014) who should ultimately graduate from university and secure employment. The Best Possible Self (BPS) is a method with the potential to cultivate hope and optimism (King, 2001). The BPS is a positive psychology intervention that presents the opportunity to envision the potential self, encompassing the fulfilment of one’s aspirations (King, 2001). One imagines a positive future (Heekerens & Eid, 2020) hence, the intervention is primarily used to express and increase optimism (Shapira & Mongrain, 2010; Loveday et al, 2018). Beyond its utility in influencing optimism, Heekerens, Eid and Heinitz (2019) propose developing the BPS intervention further, in ways that increase its effect. One way to enhance the BPS is to consider its impact on hope, through an explicit focus on the goal setting element, as hope is considered an outcome variable of the BPS (Loveday et al., 2018; Heekerens et al, 2019). Against this backdrop, the study will examine PsyCap with attention to fostering hope and optimism in university students for academic and professional advancement, using the BPS intervention. The present manuscript is organised into four chapters, namely, literature review, method, results, and discussion chapters. The literature review provides an overview of PsyCap, by expounding its origins in POB, and the four capacities of self-efficacy, resilience, hope, and optimism. Special emphasis is given to hope and optimism in academia. Subsequently, the potential and limitations of PsyCap are presented, leading to a discussion of the BPS intervention. In addition, the rationale, research aims, and research questions conclude the review. The method chapter describes the study in terms of design and implementation. Therefore, the sample, procedure, measures, research design, data analysis, and ethical considerations are characterised in detail in the method. The results chapter presents the findings from the quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, the discussion chapter considers the results relating to the research questions; compares 11 the results to those of previous studies; and concludes with recommendations for future research. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Positive Organisational Behaviour Positive Organisational Behaviour (POB) is inspired by the philosophy of positive psychology and is presented as a perspective that implements positive psychology in the workplace (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). POB was originally developed to address the need for a positive approach in the work environment (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007; Luthans & Avolio, 2009). However, it is not the only approach that meets this need. Comparable to POB, Positive Organisational Scholarship (POS) is concerned with positive aspects of the organisation. Hence POS is defined as “the study of that which is positive, flourishing, and life giving in organizations” (Cameron & Caza, 2004, p. 731). This definition and that of POB, presented earlier in the introduction of this paper, reveal minor overlap and distinct differences between the approaches (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Both perspectives focus on studying the positive but the possibility of developing the constructs of each approach varies. POB offers an opportunity to develop its studied positive psychological constructs (i.e., self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) through interventions. On the contrary, POS constructs (i.e., compassion and virtuousness) may present issues of malleability (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). The additional disparities between POB and POS are displayed in Table 1 below. 12 Table 1 Comparison of POB and POS Positive Organisational Behaviour (POB) Positive Organisational Scholarship (POS) Concerned with micro-level (employee or individual) development and performance (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Focuses on macro-level (organisation) issues. (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Criteria for inclusion of a construct: • Theory and research-based • Measurable • State-like and open to development • Impacts on performance (Luthans 2002b) Criteria for inclusion of a phenomenon: • Organisational (occurring in the organisational context) • Positive to the organisation in terms of the positive impact on processes and outcomes • Scholarship in the form of scientific investigation of the positive in the work environment (Cameron & Caza, 2004) A state-trait continuum is used and recognizes that the POB constructs exist between states and traits along the continuum (Luthans & Avolio, 2009). A deviance continuum of normal to positive deviance is employed. POS encourages a move from normal helpfulness and support to an approach of flourishing, which includes positive deviance, such as empathy and honouring relationships (Luthans & Avolio, 2009). Focuses on psychological resources that impact positive outcomes (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). POB constructs provide a competitive advantage (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011). Concerned about life-giving human conditions irrespective of their benefits (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011). 13 Despite the differences, both POB and POS studies overlooked positive constructs and phenomena, respectively (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans, 2002b; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011). Until the introduction of POS, discussing a POS phenomenon such as virtues was not considered in scientific circles (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011). Furthermore, pertinent to this study, POB constructs such as hope, optimism and resiliency are underrepresented in the field of Organisational Behaviour (OB) (Luthans & Avolio, 2009). Hence, POB is devised to challenge the emphasis on weaknesses and offers a positive approach to OB (Luthans, 2002b). From its inception, the field of OB was based on positivity However, over time it was threatened by negativity in the academic literature (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). There was a fixation with the negative. For example, from a focus on motivation and leadership theories, there was a shift in attention to topics such as stress, burnout, and unethical behaviour (Luthans, 2002b; Youssef & Luthans, 2011). Although the topics were valuable to organisations, an imbalance of the research agenda became apparent and a need to address the gap arose (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). Therefore, POB focuses on positive constructs (Luthans & Avolio, 2009) that allow individuals to be successful (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007; Culbertson, Fullagar, & Mills, 2010). Fundamentally, positive organisational behaviour and positive psychology constitute the foundation of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006; Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007; Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). The four positive psychological resources of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience are not unique to POB as they are recognized in positive psychology as well (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). However, POB's contribution is invaluable due to the way it utilizes the systematic criteria for inclusion to select and integrate the four positive constructs to form a higher-order construct (PsyCap) that impacts positive outcomes (i.e., performance and wellbeing) (Youssef & Luthans 2011). According to the POB criteria for inclusion (Luthans 2002b), listed in Table 1, a POB construct is (1) supported by theory that provides a theoretical background for the construct, and by research conducted on the construct; (2) can be validly measured, using the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) which is a measure of existing POB constructs; (3) is state-like and can be developed within the individual through an intervention such as the Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI); (4) can impact performance; (Luthans, 2002b; 14 Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). The constructs of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, collectively referred to as Psychological Capital (PsyCap), meet the criteria as they are based on theory and research, measurable, state-like, and can be managed for performance (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). 2.2. Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Psychological capital is formally defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success. (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007, p. 3) Common across the four capacities is the evaluation of circumstances positively and the prospect to succeed (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010; Luthans, Avey, Smith, Palmer, 2010). The concept can be applied at the individual level as PsyCap or at the group level as team or collective PsyCap (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007; Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). However, PsyCap was initially conceptualized at the individual level (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Individuals with higher PsyCap anticipate good outcomes (optimism), believe that they create their success (efficacy and hope), and overcome setbacks (resilience) (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). While PsyCap proposes a positive perspective concerned with human potential (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007), a critical view is that positivity is an illusion and potentially harmful (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). Despite this negative observation, as mentioned previously, the PsyCap capacities are theory and research-based and this criterion sets apart PsyCap from self-help books or short-lived management trends (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). 15 2.2.1. Self-Efficacy PsyCap efficacy is “one’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998, p.66). The terms efficacy and confidence are used interchangeably in the context of PsyCap. However, the definition of the PsyCap efficacy dimension consistently encompasses the central aspect, that is one's belief, irrespective of the use of either term. (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). The efficacy definition is drawn from Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). Bandura (1997) describes self-efficacy as the estimate established based on the probability that individuals gauge that they can achieve a particular task. In this process, they are estimating their self-efficacy. For example, if one believes that they have a 70% chance of influencing others, then their level of self-efficacy is at 70% in terms of that task. Although originally applied to a particular task, there is increasing acknowledgement that a level of self-efficacy may exist across tasks such as various workplace activities (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Self-efficacious people display five key characteristics, namely, they set ambitious goals and choose difficult tasks for themselves, accept and flourish on challenges, are self- motivated, invest the required effort to achieve goals, and persevere when they encounter obstacles (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). These characteristics depict what it entails to possess self-efficacy. 2.2.2. Resilience PsyCap resilience is defined as “the positive psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change, progress, and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002b, p. 702). Resilience entails evaluating risks that may lead to negative outcomes and assets that may result in positive outcomes (Luthans, Vogelgesang & Lester, 2006). Factors that contribute to or hinder the development of resilience are categorised into assets, risk factors, and values (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Assets refer to factors, such as education, that increase resilience (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Risk factors decrease levels of resilience. Abuse or the lack of a mentor may result in lower levels of resilience (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Values shape the 16 individual’s cognitions, emotions, and actions. Based on values, the individual may rise above present obstacles by linking them to a pleasant future which they look forward to (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). 2.2.3. Hope PsyCap hope is not understood in the same way as the concept is used in everyday language (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). Work on the hope theory (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991), in which Snyder is the leading author, provides a framework for understanding hope beyond the misconceptions (i.e., hope as wishful thinking) associated with the construct (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). According to Snyder, Irving, and Anderson (1991) “hope is a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy), and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (p. 287). This definition specifies the components of hope which are agency, pathways, and goals (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007) and helps distinguish PsyCap hope. The main difference between PsyCap hope and lay hope is that the latter is a passive state that involves waiting for a positive outcome and the former entails an active state in the achievement of a certain goal including a plan of how to achieve the goal. In this manner, the way power aspect allows PsyCap hope to stand out from the typical application of the term hope (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). High hope is characterised by clear goals and willpower which is the determination to attain one's goals, and the way power to implement or use alternative pathways to continue in goal pursuit despite possible obstacles (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). In cooperation, will and way power contribute to an elevated level of hope for successful goal attainment (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Snyder, Lopez, Shorey, Rand, and Feldman (2003) provide a practical example of hope in the educational context. The authors highlight the importance of assisting students in setting goals as this lays the foundation for fostering hope. Smart goal setting refers to specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely goals, which can be one way of guiding students to identifying realistic goals and can contribute to student learning outcomes (Lawlor, 2012). Further, to improve pathway thinking, which is an aspect of hope, students need to be supported to create sub-goals to achieve the main goal (Snyder et al., 2003). Lastly, students need to have agency by owning their goals. Ensuring that the goals are significant to them is an essential element of goal setting (Snyder, et al., 2003). Hence, developing hope may be valuable as it is 17 related to positive outcomes in areas such as academics, psychological adjustment, and physical health (Snyder, 2002). Regardless of its value, hope may be inadequate. Individuals can score high in terms of their level of hope and low on achieving desired outcomes when their goals are not clearly defined (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). This finding reiterates the importance of setting clear objectives and an enabling environment that facilitates agency and pathway thinking (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Also, unrealistic hope can be a threat to success. Therefore, setting realistic and achievable goals is crucial for hope to influence performance positively (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). 2.2.4. Optimism PsyCap optimism is comparable to PsyCap hope as it is not defined according to its use in ordinary language (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). Two positive views of optimism are integrated into PsyCap optimism, referring to a general positive expectation and an explanatory style (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). Explanatory style entails the reasons and attributions used by an individual to explain why events take place, it can be optimistic or pessimistic (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010; Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). The explanatory style perspective is reactive. Accordingly, the current study adopts the proactive positive expectancies view of optimism, defined as “a positive expectation about outcomes” (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010, p.8). Scheier and Carver (1985) conceptualize optimism as a goal-based mental process that operates when an outcome is seen as important. The authors suggest that people’s actions are influenced by the results they expect from taking those actions. For example, an individual may continue to attempt to achieve a goal if they expect that the outcome is achievable even with the presence of challenges to attaining the desired outcome. Alternatively, if one perceives that the desired outcome will not be attained, they may refrain from striving to achieve the goal irrespective of the reasons for the difficulty. In this case, the individual may disengage even when the consequences of disengagement are severe. From these two situations, the authors allude to the emergence of a disconnect of two behaviours namely “continued striving vs. giving up and turning away” (Scheier & Carver, 1992, p.202) based on people’s expectations. 18 In a theoretical overview and empirical update using a longitudinal design, Scheier and Carver (1992) examined research on the effects of optimism on psychological and physical health. The authors found that optimism can be used as a resource to cope adaptively with stress and influences psychological and physical wellbeing. Consistently and complementing hope, optimism is related to wellbeing and less stress among undergraduate students (Rand et al., 2011). Optimism also predicts better academic adjustment to university (Perera & McIlveen, 2014; Morton et al., 2014). 2.3. Hope and optimism in Academia Hope and optimism involve an expectation of achievement (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010). Both positive outcome expectancy constructs allude to aspects of expectancy (Feldman & Kubota, 2015) in their different definitions. Despite being related constructs, hope and optimism differ (Carver & Scheier, 2014). Central to optimism is the agency (will power) in thought-related goals, based on general expectancies. Hope emphasizes both agency (will power) thoughts and pathways (way power) to achieve goals (Snyder, Rand, Sigmon, 2002). Essentially, hope entails pursuing goals with a strategy of how to achieve them. As mentioned earlier, hope is associated with wishful thinking (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007) and optimism is linked to folk psychology (Carver & Scheier, 2014). Efforts to eliminate the misconstructions are important and the research carried out in support of hope and optimism as valuable constructs should be foregrounded. Empirical work such as the development of PsyCap or PsyCap dimensions of hope and optimism may possess the potential to foster a genuine appreciation for and attention to the concepts. These psychological resources are worth developing as there is an association between thinking about the future and academic achievement (Gallagher et al., 2017). Research on hope and optimism among students considers outcomes such as academic performance, retention, and adjustment (Snyder, Shorey et al., 2002; Morton et al., 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017). The role of PsyCap in the relationship between positive emotions and academic performance was investigated in a sample of high school students in Chile between the ages of 14 and 17 years. Students completed questionnaires with measures of positive emotions from the Job–Related Affective Well–Being Scale, PsyCap was measured using the PCQ-12. These measures were adapted to the academic context. Lastly, academic performance was measured using the grade point average (GPA). A subscale analysis conducted in the study 19 indicated that the PsyCap component of hope had the greatest effect on academic performance (Carmona-Halty et al, 2019). Hope is a factor that keeps students focused on achieving their academic goals (Snyder, Shorey et al., 2002). The findings of the contribution of hope reiterate the need to assist students in developing their capacity to initiate goals and reach them for academic achievement, as hope is a predictor of academic achievement (Gallagher et al., 2017). In another study on levels of hope and Grade Point Average (GPA) across the academic careers of students, the results supported the hypotheses that higher hope is related to higher GPA, higher likelihood of graduating, and lower attrition rates (Snyder, Shorey et al., 2002). It is established that hope predicts GPA and academic performance which are not predicted by optimism (Rand et al., 2011). Kotzé and Niemann (2013) examined the impact of the psychological resources of hope, optimism, and resilience on academic performance. Employing a sample of students enrolled in industrial psychology, four questionnaires were completed. The measures included a biographical questionnaire, the Adult Resilience Indicator (ARI), State Hope Scale (SHS), and Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R). Hope (pathways) was a predictor of academic performance. Optimism was not a predictor of academic performance. In another study with students, the variables hope, self-efficacy, and optimism were investigated, and hope was a better predictor of GPA (Feldman & Kubota, 2015). Optimism did not predict GPA (Feldman & Kubota, 2015). These results are consistent in terms of the direct contribution of hope to academic performance. While optimism does not produce the same outcomes as hope, its impact in the student domain has been explored. In a study of first-year students from Queensland University of Technology in Australia, optimism was useful for adapting to the transition from high school to university and a positive relationship was evident between optimism and adaptation to university (Morton et al., 2014). Perera and McIlveen (2014) examined the role of optimism in adaptation to university in a sample of freshmen attending a metropolitan university also in Australia. Participants were enrolled in various degrees in fields such as mathematics, business, arts, communication, nursing, and engineering (Perera & McIlveen, 2014). The academic adjustment construct was measured using the Organisation and Attention to Study (OAS) scale. Psychological adjustment was measured using the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS). Optimism was measured using three items of the revised Life Orientation 20 Test (LOT-R) (Perera & McIlveen, 2014). Perera and McIlveen (2014) concluded that both academic and psychological adjustment are associated with optimism. Optimism can also buffer against academic burnout and indirectly impact academic performance (Vizoso et al., 2019). Although hope and optimism are similar in the aspect of expectations, the research results presented suggest that they have different contributions. Hope and optimism are beneficial to academic outcomes and success in distinct ways (Vizoso et al, 2019). Therefore, both resources are worth studying and developing simultaneously (Kotzé & Niemann, 2013). Noteworthy, both hope and optimism stood the test of time as two of the five constructs that initially represented the POB approach (i.e., confidence, hope, optimism, subjective wellbeing, and emotional intelligence with the acronym CHOSE) (Luthans, 2002a). In the subsequent reconceptualization, hope and optimism remain as two of the four constructs of POB which is known as psychological capital (i.e., hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism with the acronym HERO) (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). 2.4. Psychological Capital Potential and Limitations Reiterated in this manuscript is the scepticism encountered by positive approaches. The approaches are considered soft and less practical in the face of challenges (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Initiatives that focus on problems are at times practical. In spite of this, consideration for personal strengths is necessary (Seligman, 1998). As an example, in universities, the traditional institutional support focused on meeting the specific needs (i.e., funding, accommodation, counselling) of students is essential. However, these initiatives may be supplemented by positive psychological interventions that are beneficial for all students, regardless of their lack of need or need for the traditional resources, in the same way that PsyCap offers a different resource from traditional human resources and social capital (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007) irrespective of poor or good performance. The following section will echo the sentiment above by highlighting the potential of PsyCap and later acknowledging the limitations of PsyCap which shape the present inquiry. PsyCap is described in various ways as a core, and malleable (Youssef & Luthans, 2011) construct. It is also regarded as a construct that resembles Hobfoll's (2002) resource caravans identified within the Conversation of Resources (COR) theory (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). 21 2.4.1. Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and PsyCap The COR theory can be used to gain more insight into PsyCap and the way it works (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). The COR theory provides a model to conceptualize stress. It explains human behaviour during stressful situations and provides an understanding of stress resistance (Hobfoll, 1989). Stress is considered to affect how people function. It is linked to mental and physical health issues (Hobfoll, 1989). Hence there is a need to build resources for individuals to be able to cope with stress. The potential assets that can be developed to tackle stress are presented in Hobfoll’s (1989) definition of resources as “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means for achievement of these objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies” (p.516). Therefore, a resource can be an end valued on its own, its attainment being sufficient (i.e., confidence or self-efficacy). Alternatively, it can be a means to an end, attained to attain another resource (i.e., build confidence or self-efficacy to be able to attain social capital) (Hobfoll, 2002). The main assumptions of COR theory are (1) that people try to keep, protect, and accumulate resources; (2) the threat they face is the possible or actual loss of the valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989). To counteract the loss or to attain the valued supplies, individuals use the reserves they have or call on what is available to them in their environment (Hobfoll, 1989). The individual's environment is important as it is a source of resources. The Conservation of Resources theory has been studied extensively in the organisational literature (Hobfoll, 2011). In this manuscript, as with PsyCap, COR theory is applied to the academic domain. As an example, students may need resources to navigate university. Students are likely to experience resource loss during their studies (i.e., loss of time due to workload or loss of support if they are away from family) (Hobfoll, 1989). Therefore, resource gain is important in their environment to mitigate the experience of stress caused by resource loss. The development of PsyCap may be one way of ensuring that psychological resources are available to students. Loss may also occur when time and energy are invested to attain highly valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989). A concrete example is the investment of time and energy in a training intervention offered to develop positive psychological capacities (PsyCap). Time may be lost while enhancing PsyCap or its capacities through an intervention. However, in the development of PsyCap and its dimensions, there is potential for greater returns (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). 22 The COR theory adopts the integrated resource model perspective in which resources are considered as a set or reservoir (Hobfoll, 2002). Key resources can be integrated (Hobfoll, 2002). A relevant example is PsyCap which is an integration of four key capacities supported by research to be beneficial and yield positive outcomes (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). Resources exist in a caravan rather than in isolation (Hobfoll, 2002). This is demonstrated by the intersection of PsyCap dimensions in developing PsyCap (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Consequently, the possession of one resource may lead to gaining another (Hobfoll, 2002). The COR theory as a resource theory takes a proactive approach to resource creation (Hobfoll, 2002), compared to the reactive approaches adopted in stress theories such as Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress and coping. This is in congruence with the proactive nature of PsyCap development. When there is less encounter of stressful situations, resources can be used for growth and not defensively to cope with stress (Hobfoll, 2002). Individuals can then solve problems in stressful situations as the situation is seen as a challenge that must be resolved (Hobfoll, 2002). It is therefore important to be proactive in resource development as those with resources are affected less by the loss. They can compensate or take the loss and call on other reserves (Hobfoll, 2002). In accordance with the abovementioned imperative, the development of PsyCap is an opportunity to enhance positive psychological resources and to contribute to optimal functioning. In their book titled “Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge”, Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007), position PsyCap as a factor that provides an advantage to people and organisations. PsyCap produces a calculable return on investment (ROI) in the form of increased performance. It is a low-risk, low-cost, and very high return factor (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). In addition to performance, PsyCap impacts wellbeing (Youssef‐Morgan & Luthans, 2015) and serves as a buffer against the effect of stress. When one experiences stress, the stress will be less associated with negative outcomes given the presence of PsyCap (Riolli et al., 2012). The current research acknowledges this benefit, although the primary focus extends beyond PsyCap’s potential to impact stress and wellbeing. This study considers PsyCap, hope, and optimism for personal development, enabling the individual to reach their full potential and succeed. However, significant lessons are acquired from the COR theory in terms of developing PsyCap capacities that may serve as reserves during resource loss. 23 Psychological Capital is a non-tangible factor that is beneficial to individuals that possess this kind of capital (Caza, Bagozzi, Woolley, & Caza, 2010). The prized higher-order construct is worth developing based on the positive outcomes associated with it (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Siu, Bakker, and Jiang (2014) argue that PsyCap is an essential personal resource, which aids in the achievement of goals. Finally, it is important to bear in mind that the impact of resources is long-term (Hobfoll, 2002). While PsyCap interventions are short, they may foster psychological resources with a long-term influence (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). 2.4.2. PsyCap Measure The positive psychological resources of self-efficacy, resilience, hope, optimism, and the main construct, Psychological Capital, can be measured using the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). The questionnaire can be useful in quantifying PsyCap and its dimensions, and in establishing the efficacy of PsyCap development interventions in studies using the PCQ to measure levels of PsyCap (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008; Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010). Two versions of the questionnaire are accessible from www.mindgarden.com. The PCQ-24 is a comprehensive questionnaire that consists of 24 items. The PCQ-12 is the shorter version that includes 12 items. The Implicit Psychological Capital Questionnaire (I- PCQ) is another measure of PsyCap (Harms & Luthans, 2012) that is beyond the focus of the current research. The PCQ-24 and PCQ-12 comprise self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism subscales (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). However, the number of items for each subscale varies between the two questionnaires. The PCQ-24 is made up of 4 hope, 4 self-efficacy, 4 resilience, 4 optimism items, and reverse-scored items (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). The PCQ-12 comprises 4 hope, 3 self-efficacy, 3 resilience, and 2 optimism items (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). The reverse-scored items are excluded from the PCQ-12 (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). The items of the four subscales originate from well-established and tested instruments (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007; Avey, Luthans, Smith, Palmer, 2010). The PCQ is derived from Parker’s (1998) measure of efficacy; the Snyder et al. (1996) state hope scale; Wagnild and Young’s (1993) resiliency scale; and the optimism questionnaire by Scheier and Carver (1985) (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). http://www.mindgarden.com/ 24 Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007) evaluated the reliability of the PCQ-24 in four samples which yielded the Cronbach’s alphas that follow: hope (.72, .75, .80, .76); resilience (.71, .71, .66, .72); self-efficacy (.75, .84, .85, .75); optimism (.74, .69, .76, .79); and overall PsyCap (.88, .89, .89, .89). The optimism subscale in the second sample (.69) and the resilience subscale in the third sample (.66) did not yield acceptable internal consistency; in all four samples the overall PsyCap measure produced acceptable levels of reliability (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). Furthermore, in another study on management students and managers from different organisations, all subscales had an acceptable Cronbach's alpha greater than .70, except for resilience, in the student sample, the alpha was 0.69 and above .70 in the sample of managers (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010). The overall 24-item PCQ yielded high Cronbach's alpha of more than .90 in the two samples (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). Lastly, in a study by Avey, Luthans, Smith, and Palmer (2010), on the impact of PsyCap on wellbeing with a sample of working adults, the PCQ-24 proved to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93. Acceptable levels of internal consistency were clear from the subscales (hope = .87, efficacy = .87, resilience = .72, optimism = .78). Consistent with previous results (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007; Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010), hope, efficacy, and overall PsyCap yielded higher reliability while the reliability of resilience and optimism was lower. In a study involving a nationally representative random sample of employed adults in New Zealand, Caza, Bagozzi, Woolley, & Caza (2010) examined the psychometric properties of the PCQ-12. The PCQ was confirmed as a sound measure and the results of the PCQ-12 are comparable to those of the PCQ-24 (Caza, Bagozzi, Woolley, & Caza, 2010). The psychometric properties of the PCQ confirm the reliability of the measure and support the suitability of PsyCap for research and development (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Despite this, there are discrepancies in the reliability levels of the resilience and optimism subscales in some samples (see Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007; Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010; Avey, Luthans, Smith & Palmer, 2010) which may be investigated further through research across different samples. 25 In South Africa, Görgens-Ekermans and Herbert (2013) attempted to establish the reliability, internal (construct and discriminant validity), and external validity of the PCQ-24. The sample in their study included managerial and non-managerial employees from a medium-sized organisation in South Africa (Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert, 2013). However, it is important to note that the results serve as preliminary support as the sample was not representative of the South African population. Participants spoke Afrikaans, English, and isiXhosa. Consistent with earlier research (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010), the subscales of resilience and optimism had low reliability. Self-efficacy, hope, and PsyCap (total score) displayed acceptable internal consistency. The following Cronbach's alpha coefficients were obtained: hope = .81, efficacy = .83, resilience = .69, optimism =.67 and overall PsyCap = .85 (Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert, 2013). These results offer insight into the suitability of the PCQ-24 based on data from a sample in South Africa. The use of the PCQ-24 in the present study, conducted in South Africa, will also contribute additional insight on the reliability of the instrument based on the current sample of students. A consistent aspect of PsyCap is its structure. In the study by Luthans, Avey, Avolio and Peterson (2010), investigating PsyCap development and the impact of PsyCap on performance, a comparison of five models consisting of different combinations of the constructs of PsyCap was conducted. One of the models which combined all the four constructs (all 24 items) supported a higher-order construct of overall PsyCap, across samples and the higher-model fit the data better than the other models (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). The research confirmed that PsyCap is multidimensional (see Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). However, in the study, it was not clear whether one or more of the PsyCap dimensions differentially created the observed effects on performance (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). This point of ambiguity was put forward by Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson (2010) as a recommendation for further research. 2.4.3. PsyCap Development PsyCap capacities are state-like constructs that can be influenced through intervention (Luthans & Avolio, 2009). PsyCap dimensions are more stable than states such as emotions and mood. They are also not fixed like traits such as conscientiousness and core-self evaluations (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). According to Lyubomirsky (2008), 50% of positivity is inherited or trait-like, 10% is determined by circumstances such as 26 income or location, and 40% can be developed through focused intervention. PsyCap development aims to enhance the 40% that remains malleable (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). It can be developed through mastery of tasks (efficacy), goal setting (hope), future-oriented thinking (optimism), and pathway planning for possible challenges (resilience) (Youssef & Luthans, 2011). Psychological Capital promotes positive thinking, and the positive change induced through developing PsyCap can spill over to other areas of life at the individual, team, group, organisational, family and community level (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017). The enhancement of PsyCap through short and focused interventions impacts positively on performance (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). In particular, the development of PsyCap in students has the potential to contribute to improved academic performance (Siu, Bakker & Jiang, 2014). Positive psychological capacities can be used or fostered to motivate university students to strive for success in their studies (Siu, Bakker & Jiang, 2014). PsyCap can guide the way individuals frame their life experiences (Culbertson, Fullagar, & Mills, 2010). Siu, Bakker, and Jiang (2014) maintain that to be able to cope with the challenges of daily and academic life, students, who are also prospective employees, need to develop psychological capital. The Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI), a micro-intervention, was introduced to develop PsyCap (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). The short training is called a micro-intervention due to its duration of fewer than 3 hours (Luthans & Avolio, 2009). The PCI incorporates exercises or video clips to enhance the PsyCap capacities in sessions that last between 1 to 3 hours (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). The micro-intervention entails the development of hope through goal setting; generation of pathways; mental rehearsals of goal pursuit using the generated pathways; and planning to overcome obstacles (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). In developing self-efficacy, the PCI integrates the hope goal exercise with the four sources of efficacy namely, task mastery; modelling, social persuasion, and positive feedback (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Self-talk, hope, and self-efficacy development activities can be used to foster optimism (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). The PCI targets asset factors (e.g. education) and risk factors (e.g. abuse or lack of mentors), and the influence process to develop resiliency by framing setbacks (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, 27 Norman & Combs, 2006). The broader aim of the intervention is to influence performance through the development of the four PsyCap capacities (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Those with higher PsyCap may be energized and invest effort evident in higher performance (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). To capitalize on the state-like, developmental nature of PsyCap, the PCI has been tested to improve PsyCap (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Table 2 presents six studies, reported during the period 2006 to 2010, that demonstrate the impact of the PCI on PsyCap. Most of the PsyCap interventions were delivered in person and one study involved a web- based administration of the intervention. Table 2 PCI Studies Source/Article Study Sample PCI Mode of Delivery Psychological capital development: toward a micro‐intervention by Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman and Combs (2006) (1) Management students; (2) Practicing managers (follow- up study); (3) Engineering managers In-person Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital by Luthans, Avey and Patera (2008) (4) Working adults Online The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital by Luthans, Avey, Avolio and Peterson (2010) (5) Advanced management students (pilot test); (6) Practicing managers (follow- up study) In-person 28 The PCI was first tested in a study by Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman and Combs (2006), in which they investigated the efficacy of the face-to-face PCI, aimed at developing PsyCap through increasing PsyCap levels. The sample consisted of students enrolled for a management qualification. The students were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. The PsyCap of the students was measured before and after interventions. Participants in the experimental groups received the 1-hour micro-intervention, administered according to the guidelines of the PCI intervention (see Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). The control groups received the ‘Desert Survival’ exercise, unrelated to the PCI. The PCQ-24 was used to measure PsyCap. The PCI increased levels of PsyCap in the experimental group and the Desert Survival exercise did not produce an increase in levels of PsyCap for the control group (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Hence, the results of the study supplied preliminary support that the PCI increases PsyCap and impacts performance and return on investment. After the initial results of the PCI, Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman and Combs (2006) conducted the first follow-up study with a sample of practicing managers. Managers from various types of organisations took part in a 2-hour PCI intervention. Pre-test and post-test measures indicated an increase in PsyCap after the intervention. Specifically, an increase of about 3%, in PsyCap levels, was evident in both the management students and practicing managers samples, following the administration of the PCI. In another study consisting of a sample of engineering managers, participants experienced a 2.5-hour session of the PCI (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Levels of PsyCap were marginally lower but significant. Therefore, the PCI had an impact on the levels of PsyCap (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006). Although the PCI was first administered in person (see Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006), it has also been administered online as web-based training. The purpose of the study by Luthans, Avey and Patera (2008) was to examine whether a 2-hour web-based intervention, administered using the internet, can increase PsyCap. In the online session, the sample consisted of employees who were working adults from various industries namely, manufacturing, services, sales, and government (Luthans, Avey & Patera, 2008). Participants were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group (Luthans, Avey & Patera, 2008). For the treatment group, the first session developed resiliency and efficacy, and the second session focused on enhancing hope and optimism (Luthans, Avey & Patera, 2008). A narrated video presentation and short video clips were used. The control group took 29 part in a decision-making exercise. Pre-test and post-test measures of PsyCap were taken. All the PsyCap components and overall PsyCap were reliable with the following Cronbach’s alpha: .92 (efficacy), .87 (hope), .83 (resilience), .77 (optimism), .93 (overall PsyCap) (Luthans, Avey & Patera, 2008). The statistical techniques used to determine the effect of the web-based PCI on PsyCap and to control for other variables included Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), respectively. The treatment group showed a significant increase in levels of PsyCap and the control group showed no significant increase in PsyCap. PsyCap was predicted by the group variable at Time 2 while controlling for the pre-test scores, demographics, and job level. Therefore, the online training intervention was effective in developing PsyCap (Luthans, Avey & Patera, 2008). This study provides relevant support for a beneficial PsyCap intervention that is administered online. Furthermore, Luthans, Avey, Avolio and Peterson (2010) investigated the development of PsyCap, using the PCI, and its impact on performance. First, a pilot test was conducted to examine the impact of the PCI. A randomized control group design was used. Pre and post-test measures were collected from the experimental and control group. The pilot study sample consisted of advanced management students, randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. The experimental group participated in the PCI with a duration of two hours. The control group received a decision-making intervention. Participants who took part in the PCI reported increased PsyCap and those who underwent the decision-making intervention displayed no substantial increase in PsyCap. After the pilot test, a follow-up study assessed the influence of the PCI on PsyCap and the performance of practicing managers (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010). This was the main study and comprised of managers from various organisations. The participants took part in a two-hour intervention with one group and no control group (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson (2010). The research provided support for the use of short interventions such as the PCI to enhance PsyCap and improve performance (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010). The study was a further test of the PCI, following the preliminary results from the study by Luthans, Avey, and Patera (2008). Based on the outcomes of the presented PCI studies, the intervention consistently produced significant results in terms of its impact on PsyCap. Despite the different samples of students and managers, the mode of delivery, and the varying levels of PsyCap, the PCI was effective. 30 2.4.4. Interaction between PsyCap Capacities Adapted from the PCI (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006), Figure 1 illustrates the eight developmental dimensions used to develop the four psychological capacities of PsyCap. The developmental dimensions contribute to the capacities as follows: Hope is developed through (1) goals and pathways and (2) implementing obstacle planning; optimism through (3) building efficacy or confidence and (4) developing positive expectancy. Efficacy is established by (5) experiencing success and modelling others and (6) persuasion and arousal; resilience by (7) building assets or avoiding risks and (8) how to affect the influence process. 31 Figure 1 Psychological Capital Intervention: Developmental Dimensions and Outcomes Source: Adapted from Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, and Combs (2006) Firstly, the developmental dimensions (1 and 4) and psychological capacities (hope and optimism) central to the present study are highlighted in blue in Figure 1. Secondly, despite the contribution of (2) obstacle planning and (3) building efficacy to hope and optimism, respectively, these developmental dimensions are not considered in the current study. The relevant dimensions (1 and 4) are selected to distinguish the variables of hope and optimism from efficacy and resilience, limit potential overlap and avoid a possible dual impact on the central and non-central capacities. Applying (2) obstacle planning, as with the dimension of (7) avoiding risks, may trigger resilience. Furthermore, although (3) building efficacy or confidence is a developmental dimension for optimism, it may impact efficacy as an outcome. Goals and Pathways Hope Developing Positive Expectancy Realistic Optimism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 32 Lastly, the direct developmental dimensions for developing efficacy (dimensions 5 and 6) and resilience (dimensions 7 and 8) are also not central. The PsyCap capacities (hope, efficacy, resilience, optimism) are abbreviated to form the word HERO (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017), combining the first letter of each of the constructs. In this manuscript, an additional acronym, HO, is included to represent hope and optimism. Using a deductive argument, the position of the current research on PsyCap is presented as follows: Premise 1: HERO is PsyCap Premise 2: HO is not HERO Conclusion: HO is not PsyCap Based on the reasoning, developing the capacities of hope and optimism is not the same as developing hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, which jointly are, overall PsyCap. It is of theoretical interest to establish whether overall PsyCap (HERO) is influenced in targeting hope and optimism (HO). It is noteworthy that the PsyCap components create synergy and so when one capacity is affected, the others may also be affected (Peterson, Luthans, Walumbwa, & Zhang, 2011). The convergence of the PsyCap factors may result in the factors acting as pathways to resilience. Individuals who are hopeful, optimistic, and confident are likely to recover from difficulties (be resilient) (Luthans, Vogelgesang, Lester, 2006). The interactions between the PsyCap variables presuppose blurred boundaries between them. According to Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007), the capacities of PsyCap can interact in this manner: hopeful persons who possess the agency and pathways to achieve their goals will be more motivated to and capable of overcoming adversities and, thus, be more resilient. Confident persons will be able to transfer and apply their hope, optimism, and resiliency to the specific tasks within specific domains of their lives. A resilient person will be adept at utilising the adaptational mechanisms necessary for realistic and flexible optimism. PsyCap self-efficacy, hope, and resiliency can in turn contribute to an optimistic explanatory style through internalized perceptions of being in control. These are just representative of the many positive outcomes that may result from the interaction among the PsyCap factors. (p.19) 33 A focus on developing one or two capacities may produce the same effects observed with overall PsyCap (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010), bearing in mind that the PsyCap constructs display synergy (Luthans, Vogelgesang, Lester, 2006; Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007; Peterson, Luthans, Walumbwa, & Zhang, 2011). Based on the possible interactions, the present study considers overall PsyCap and focuses primarily on developing hope and optimism using the Best Possible Self (BPS) intervention as an alternative to the Psychological Capital Intervention. 2.5. Best Possible Self The Best Possible Self, first used by King (2001), intends to promote positive emotions (Loveday et al, 2018). Over 30 studies used the BPS to promote various outcomes such as optimism, positive affect, and wellbeing (Loveday et al, 2018; Peters et al, 2010). Additionally, BPS studies have focused on optimism using the Life Orientation Test (original and revised) as a measure and students as a sample (Boselie et al., 2014; Boselie et al., 2016; Boselie et al., 2017; Hanssen et al., 2013; Meevissen et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2013; Peters et al., 2015). The intervention entails writing about the future self. As much as writing is important, speaking about the future self is more beneficial for participants and the use of mental imagery is also encouraged (Loveday et al, 2018). The process of creating the possible selves allows individuals to actively shape their development (Markus & Nurius, 1986). The idea of the possible self motivates behaviour directed to future outcomes (Round & Burke, 2018). Round and Burke (2018) later applied a similar but tailored BPS intervention for a sample of retirees. Their adapted intervention was referred to as the Best Possible Self Goals (BPSG) (Round, 2016) and merged the Best Possible Self (BPS) by King (2001) with goal setting (Round & Burke, 2018). The study by Round and Burke (2018) aimed to examine experiences of the positive psychology intervention and to look at the contribution of the intervention to retirement wellbeing. The qualitative study used phenomenological analysis and participatory action research. Three retired women participated in the research. Participants were given journals to engage in expressive writing regarding their best possible selves for four days (20 minutes each day). They used smart goal setting sheets to independently complete a maximum of 5 goals. Each participant took part in two separate interviews and a final group discussion (Round & Burke, 2018). The BPSG intervention had a positive contribution to perceived retirement wellbeing and enhanced the hedonic-eudaimonic balance (Round and 34 Burke, 2018). This study is applicable as the present inquiry also incorporates a modified version of the BPS which involves goal setting. The current Best Possible Self (BPS) intervention, adapted from King (2001), includes aspects of smart goal setting and envisioning one’s best possible self, targeted at hope and optimism, respectively. The tailored BPS intervention encompasses two motivation theories, namely, goal setting theory and possible selves theory (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). Consequently, the BPS is not aimed at imparting academic content but at the psychology of individuals, in this case, students (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Small interventions aimed at influencing students’ beliefs such as their mindsets can impact academic improvement (Wilson & Buttrick, 2016). Furthermore, in the university setting, students should see the connection between training content and their campus life (Burke & Hutchins, 2007). Therefore, goal setting theory based interventions encourage students to set specific and realistic goals related to their studies (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). In developing hope, aspects such as designing goals and pathway generation are considered (Luthans, Avey et al., 2006). The goal setting dimension included in the present study enables the formation of clear goals using smart goal setting. For example, a student may set a goal to achieve an average of 75% in the second semester of their studies. Action steps (generating pathways) to achieve the main goal are also set. An action step may entail allocating an additional 3 hours a day to specific modules. This process of establishing anticipated accomplishments is used to contribute to a realistic BPS. In terms of the BPS, the possible selves is a conceptual representation of the person that an individual wants to be (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Possible selves theory inspired interventions allow students to link their future selves to their current academic involvement (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). Tinto (2017) provides different factors to enhance motivation to persist, he acknowledges that institutions need to assist students in clarifying their goals to foster motivation and persistence. In line with this responsibility placed on institutions, the current intervention is positioned within the curriculum as a tutorial activity for personal development in areas such as goal setting and problem-solving which are beneficial to academic and professional life. Both tasks (experimental and control group) are helpful but develop different capacities. The Best Possible Self (BPS) intervention, which is the main experimental group intervention, fosters hope and optimism through goal setting and the BPS personal story. The Daily Activity (DA) exercise for the control group may contribute to problem-solving capacity. 35 Academic demands are managed through goal setting and interpersonal relationships through problem-solving (Riolli et al., 2012). The method chapter presents details of the intervention, including the exercises completed by participants, the intervention materials (videos and worksheets) given to participants, the step-by-step process of the intervention. The BPS Intervention Programme (Appendix A) provides more information on the activities of the intervention. For each activity, the objective, duration, and constructs developed are stated accordingly. 2.6. Rationale, Research Aim, and Research Questions 2.6.1. Rationale PsyCap is rooted in the positivity movement and is based on the premise that if people positively view situations, they are likely to thrive (Harms & Luthans, 2012). Hope and optimism are two capacities presented as part of PsyCap (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Feldman and Kubota (2015) recommend exploring interventions that may enhance hope in the academic domain, given the impetus of a strong relationship between hope and GPA. Snyder, Shorey et al., (2002) suggest that “…hope may be a lesson worth learning” (p.824) in universities. As with hope, there is value in promoting optimism, a concept supported for adjustment in the learning environment (Morton et al., 2014). Further, research attention is needed in examining hope and optimism to improve academic success (Bressler et al, 2010). A widely applied positive psychology intervention is the Best Possible Self (BPS) (King, 2001). Recommendations have been made to explore the effect of the optimism promoting BPS on hope (Loveday et al, 2018; Heekerens et al, 2019) on a practical level. The receptiveness to additional insight on whether influencing one or two PsyCap constructs may have the same impact as with PsyCap (HERO) (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Peterson, 2010), is also relevant. Therefore, it is of theoretical interest to understand whether a BPS intervention effect or no effect on hope and optimism can yield the same result on overall PsyCap. Cognizant that the PCI is an established intervention for enhancing PsyCap (HERO) (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006), the present study explores an alternative and enhanced intervention. The current research contributes to addressing the dearth of studies on the BPS, incorporating goal setting, aimed at developing both hope and optimism and its impact on overall PsyCap. The study is an opportunity to simultaneously examine the impact, if any, of 36 the BPS intervention and test the PsyCap theory. Intervention studies are worthwhile as recommendations can be made for educational practice (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). 2.6.2 Research Aims The current study aims to investigate the effect of the BPS intervention on hope and optimism, which are two of the four constructs of PsyCap. Based on the possibility of interaction between PsyCap constructs, the effect of the BPS on overall PsyCap will also be explored. An evaluation of the process of the intervention will be carried out to investigate the factors responsible for the observed results. 2.6.3. Research Questions Effect (Quantitative) 1. Is there an effect of the BPS intervention on levels of hope? 2. Is there an effect of the BPS intervention on levels of optimism? 3. Is there an effect of the BPS intervention on levels of overall PsyCap (hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism)? Process (Qualitative) The following research question is posed for participants to provide their detailed insight on the process of the intervention. The feedback will be used to understand the results on the effectiveness of the intervention. 1. What are the perceptions of students in terms of the manner in which the intervention was delivered and its contribution? 37 3. Method 3.1. Sample The sample consisted of first-year students registered for a 4-year degree in the Faculty of Health Sciences (Therapeutics) at the University of the Witwatersrand and taking a course in Psychology for the Health Sciences. The course comprised tutorials with activities aimed at fostering academic and professional development. Therefore, the BPS and DA intervention tasks were conducted as part of a tutorial class activity for all the students on the course. A non-probability and convenience sampling (Etikan et al, 2016) was employed. In non-probability samples, the probability that each member of the population is selected is unknown (Acharya, Prakash, Saxena & Nigam, 2013). Random sampling was not possible in tutorial class settings with predefined groups. Convenience sampling entails selecting individuals that are available and willing to take part in the study (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Students who volunteered to participate formed the samples in the quantitative and qualitative phases of the mixed methods research. A total of 47 students participated in the quantitative phase of the study. Seventeen participants were removed from the study as they completed the pre-test questionnaire only. Both the pre-test and post-test scores were required to determine whether there were differences in hope, optimism, and PsyCap levels following the BPS or DA intervention. In the initial quantitative data collection process, the response rate was poor (approximately 12.31%). Out of 130 students, 16 completed the pre-test and post-test with 8 in the experimental group (BPS intervention) and 8 in the control group (Daily Activities task). The data was insufficient for data analysis. Additional data was collected from a different group of 167 first-year students who were also from the Faculty of Health Sciences (Therapeutics). Of the 167 students, 14 completed the pre-test and post-test with 6 in the experimental group and 8 in the control group. All the quantitative data collected were combined. A final total of 14 participants were in the experimental group and 16 in the control group. Participation was voluntary and students were allowed to decide not to complete the post-test even if they took the pre-test. Hence, there were two more participants in the control condition that responded to both the pre-test and post-test. Therefore, the researcher was 38 unable to determine or control the number of participants in the BPS or DA group who would complete the post-test. The intervention was completed before the post-test. Attrition is one of the challenges of multiple waves of data collection and its accumulation across the data collection points reduces the number of participants (Lavrakas, 2008). Hence, 30 participants constituted the final sample. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with six of the 30 students who participated in the quantitative stage of data collection and were in the BPS group. The interviews were audio- recorded. 3.2. Procedure A pilot study was conducted to establish whether the materials (worksheets and videos) for the intervention, adapted instruments and the qualitative interview questions were usable as they were or if modifications were required. The pilot was conducted with five Master's students from Wits University. Based on the feedback from the pilot, the table for sub-goals in the BPS intervention worksheet was reformatted for ease of completion in the actual study. The DA exercise worksheet was clear for all participants. No changes were made to the videos, questionnaire, and interview questions as they were understood by all. The data collection was completed with first-year students from the Faculty of Health Sciences (Therapeutics). Data collection took place over approximately four weeks. This included completion of the following aspects: pre-test in week one, intervention in week two, post-test in week three, and the interviews in week four. Students were invited to participate in online assessments (before and after the intervention). An email containing the participant information sheet (Appendix B) and a link to the online questionnaire set up on Google Forms, were sent to students. Consent to participate (Appendix C) in the study was requested online before proceeding with the questionnaire. Participants were also sent email reminders to complete the questionnaire. Based on the consent to participate in the study and completion of the pre-test, the students opting to take part in the study were allocated to the experimental or control condition. Participants were randomly assigned to the BPS or DA intervention after the pre- test. On the list of participants, the first participant was assigned to the BPS group, the second to the DA group, the third to BPS, and the fourth to DA. Therefore, between two participants, every first participant was assigned to the BPS and every second to the DA, until everyone was allocated. Students who opted out completed the DA task. 39 The BPS and DA interventions were administered online using recorded Microsoft PowerPoint video presentations (Appendix D) that were accessible by students from Sakai and Ulwazi (Canvas) course sites. The Best Possible Self (BPS) intervention required participants to complete a smart goal-setting task for clear and realistic academic goals, they also recorded their skills and desires (Meevissen et al, 2011). Participants then used the information to think, write, imagine and speak about their Best Possible Self in terms of their professional (career) life. Participants were strongly encouraged to read their BPS to themselves or an individual with whom they were comfortable. They were not required to submit evidence of reading the story. Literature suggests the benefits are greater when reading or speaking of one’s BPS (Loveday et al, 2018) however, there are also benefits in writing which is the initial conceptualisation of the BPS exercise. Participants in the experimental group had access to the narrated video presentations to guide them through the BPS worksheets (Appendix E) completed and submitted as a word document, to the researcher. Figure 2 presents a step-by-step breakdown of the process for the online BPS intervention. 40 Figure 2 Process for BPS Intervention Participants in the control group were asked to write about their activities in the past 24 hours. Guidelines on how to write about the DA were provided using narrated video presentations. The completed DA worksheet (Appendix F) was also submitted as a word document. Figure 3 presents a breakdown of the online control condition exercise. The facilitator reads the SMART goals worksheet and directs students to complete it (20 minutes). Video Presentation 2 The facilitator reads the BPS story sheet and asks students to complete it by writing a personal story (20 minutes). Video Presentation 3 Students are asked to imagine themselves living as their BPS and encouraged to read their story (5 minutes, respectively). Video Presentation 4 Students are requested to submit their completed worksheets. The facilitator concludes by thanking students for completing the intervention. Video Presentation 5 Introduction and instructions presented by the facilitator to students (10 minutes). Video Presentation 1 41 Figure 3 Process for DA Intervention An attempt was made to standardise the formats of the BPS and DA interventions but also include different content as the BPS is the main intervention that is under investigation. This strategy is comparable to that used by Luthans, Luthans, & Avey (2014). In their study on developing academic PsyCap, the scholars used the PsyCap intervention for the experimental group and a different, next best intervention for the control group. The control group intervention targeted team building and leadership which are not the four constructs of PsyCap. Most important, the two interventions comprised similar duration and exercise formats to maintain as much equivalence, as possible, in the two conditions (Luthans, Luthans, & Avey, 2014). The facilitator reads the first activity (details of the past 24 hours) of the Daily Activities exercise and asks students to complete it Video Presentation 2 The facilitator asks students to list the problem areas they identified while writing the details of the past 24 hours. Video Presentation 3 Students are asked to write the actions they intend to take to improve the problem areas. Video Presentation 4 Students are requested to submit their completed worksheets. The facilitator concludes by thanking students for completing the task. Video Presentation 5 Introduction and instructions presented by the facilitator to students Video Presentation 1 42 The post-test was administered a week after the BPS and DA interventions. The post- test questionnaire was the same measure as the pre-test questionnaire and both were distributed in the same way, explained earlier in the online assessments (before and after the intervention) procedure. BPS participants who showed interest in being interviewed by providing their contact details in the questionnaire were invited for semi-structured interviews (Appendix G). Each participant completed and submitted a consent form (Appendix H) before the interview took place on Microsoft Teams. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Demographic Information The demographic section elicited data such as student number, year of study, length of the degree, gender, race, age, home language. The information was collected to represent the diversity of the sample (see Table 3 for sample demographic characteristics). 3.3.2. PCQ-24 The researcher requested individual permission from www.mindgarden.com to use the Psychological Capital Questionnaire. Permission to use the PCQ-24 was granted on 31 May 2020 (Appendix I). The PCQ-24 (Luthans, Avolio & Avey, 2007) (Appendix J) items were adapted to reflect the academic, student environment as the original questionnaire contains items phrased for the work and employee context. For example, one of the 24 items states “I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work”. This item was revised to “I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to my studies” (Appendix K). The PCQ-24 measures overall PsyCap including its four dimensions of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism. The efficacy subscale is adapted from Parker (1998); hope subscale is adapted from Snyder, Sympson, Ybasco, Borders, Babyak, Higgins (1996); resiliency subscale is adapted from Wagnild and Young (1993); and optimism subscale is adapted from Scheier and Carver (1985) (Luthans et al., 2007). The PCQ-24 self-report measure consists of a Likert-type scale with anchors 1= strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree. 3.3.3. Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explain the quantitative results in terms of the process used in the implementation of the intervention. The interview questions considered the usefulness of the intervention and suggestions from participants were invited. Participants were asked questions set out in the interview schedule (Appendix L). In instances where it was http://www.mindgarden.com/ 43 necessary, the researcher asked follow-up questions to clarify the answers provided by participants. 3.4. Research Design The current study used a mixed methods (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) explanatory sequential design (Ivankova et al., 2006). Due to the limitations of quantitative data in providing possible explanations for the results, the quantitatively driven design incorporated the core quantitative component followed by the supplemental qualitative component to explain the quantitative results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). The quantitative component involved a quasi-experimental design (Gribbons & Herman, 1997). The research was carried out in a field setting (Reichardt, 2019) consisting of participants randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. However, the sample of students was in predetermined tutorial groups with no random selection from the population (Osborn, 2019). A quasi-experiment was executed, as basic and applied research (Reichardt, 2009). At the basic research level, the quasi-experimental design was used to examine the effect of the BPS intervention to test the theory of PsyCap. On the other hand, at the level of applied research, the quasi-experiment was implemented to establish if a contribution to the development of hope and optimism is feasible using the BPS intervention. The quantitative method was a quasi-experimental pre-test post-test non-equivalent group design (Gribbons & Herman, 1997; Reichardt, 2019). The qualitative aspect of the design entailed semi-structured interviews to evaluate the BPS intervention. The integration of the results of the two components aimed to establish whether there was an effect of the intervention and to describe the underlying process (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). Figure 4 presents a model of the mixed methods explanatory sequential design encompassing a quasi- experiment pre-test post-test non-equivalent group design and semi-structured interviews. 44 Figure 4 Model of Mixed Methods Design and its Components Phase Procedure Adapted from Ivankova, Creswell & Stick (2006) Quasi- experiment Experimental group Control group Pre-test Pre-test Intervention Placebo Post-test Post-test Quantitative Data Collection Quantitative Data Analysis Qualitative Data Collection Qualitative Data Analysis Semi-structured interviews Analysis of Variance Mixed model ANOVA Thematic analysis 45 3.5. Data Analysis Data preparation of the quantitative data took place on Microsoft Excel before data analysis. The data was downloaded from Google Forms to an Excel document. It was cleaned, checked for missing data and out of range scores for each subscale and the overall PsyCap scale. The relevant items (13, 20, and 23) were reverse scored and totals for efficacy, hope, resilience, optimism, and overall PsyCap were computed. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 was used for the preliminary and main analyses. The qualitative data were recorded during interviews and later transcribed (Appendix M). Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used. 3.5.1. The Effect of the BPS Intervention on Hope, Optimism and Overall PsyCap The assumptions of the mixed model ANOVA were tested before using the technique. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was conducted to test whether the data were normally distributed. To test for equal variances, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was performed. Box plots were used to determine significant outliers. Mauchly's Test of Sphericity was considered. A mixed model ANOVA was used to establish the difference within groups (pre-test and post-test) and between groups (treatment and control condition). 3.5.2. An Evaluation of the Process of the Intervention Thematic analysis was conducted using the data from the semi-structured interviews. Themes were identified to report on the patterns that emerged to form the experience of the participants, the intervention-related aspects which were successful, and areas for improvement. 3.6. Ethical Considerations Ethics clearance for the study was granted by the School of Human and Community Development Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: MASPR/20/04) (see Appendix N). Permission to conduct research with the student sample was requested (see Appendix O) and granted by the Wits University Deputy Registrar’s office. In addition, the Deputy Registrar’s office approved the researcher’s request to communicate with participants through an established tutorial site with the assistance of the tutorial (course) coordinator. The participant information sheets (Appendix B and G) and consent forms (Appendix C and H) were sent to students for informed consent. 46 Confidentiality was guaranteed and maintained as the data collected was accessible to the researcher and researcher’s supervisor only. The data collection point was protected with a password. The data was also stored on a password protected computer. Anonymity could not be guaranteed as all participants provided their student numbers and some participated in interviews. However, confidentiality measures were in place to protect the identities of participants. Research IDs were allocated to participants and pseudonyms were used in reporting the qualitative data. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants could withdraw from the study. Students who did not opt to participate received the control group exercise material. They did not complete questionnaires or engage in the interviews. To manage the ethical conflict of offering the BPS intervention to one group and a placebo to another group, it was intended that the BPS intervention would be offered to the placebo group if it were effective. Some participants may have experienced slight uneasiness during the BPS intervention while setting academic goals and thinking of their future as professionals. For first-year students, some students may have enrolled for a degree that was not their first choice. There may have been students who were underperforming in their studies. Therefore, students might have had different experiences of the BPS intervention. Participants in the Daily Activities control group may have felt discomfort if the activities they had experienced in the past 24 hours were unpleasant. Hence, participants were referred to Wits University’s Careers and Counselling Development Unit (CCDU) and the Wits Student Crisis Line, if they experienced any discomfort while completing the exercises. The referral was provided to ensure the wellbeing of all the students. There were no participants who indicated, to the researcher, discomfort during their participation in the study. 47 4. Results The results of the preliminary and main statistical analyses performed for the research are presented in this section. Firstly, the summary of the sample gender, race, age, home language is presented. Secondly, psychometric statistics and descriptive statistics providing results for the scales used to collect quantitative data are presented. Thirdly, the results of the main analyses are provided. The main analyses consisted of mixed model ANOVA examining the effect of the BPS intervention on hope, optimism, and overall PsyCap. Lastly, the findings of the thematic analysis of the qualitative data are reported to provide an evaluation of the intervention. 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Gender, Race, Age, Home Language The sample of 30 students consisted mainly of female (90%), black (70%) participants (see Table 3). The age category 18 – 23 was selected by all participants. Therefore, participants were between the ages of 18 to 23 years. The distribution of home languages was varied as follows: English (26.7%), isiZulu (16.7%), Setswana (10%), Tshivenda (10%), Xitsonga (10%), Afrikaans (6.7%), Sesotho (6.7%), siSwati (6.7%), isiXhosa (3.3%), Sepedi (3.3%) (see Table 3). 48 Table 3 Sample Demographic Characteristics: Gender, Race and Home Language (N=30) Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Female 27 90.0 Male 3 10.0 Total 30 100 Race Black 21 70.0 Indian 2 6.7 White 7 23.3 Total 30 100 Home Language Afrikaans 2 6.7 IsiXhosa 1 3.3 English 8 26.7 IsiZulu 5 16.7 Sepedi 1 3.3 Sesotho 2 6.7 Setswana 3 10.0 SiSwati 2 6.7 Tshivenda 3 10.0 Xitsonga 3 10.0 Total 30 100.1 4.2. Psychometric Statistics The internal consistency of the PCQ-24 was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. For research purposes coefficient alpha above .7 is acceptable (Bennett & Allen, 2012). Internal consistency reliability is the extent to which there is homogeneity in the components of an instrument in that they measure the same aspect (Huck, 2012). 49 Table 4 shows the internal consistency coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha) of the PsyCap subscales and overall PsyCap (PCQ-24) scale. Measures were taken at two different times. All subscales, pre-test and post-test, had 6 items and the overall PsyCap scale, pre-test and post-test, consisted of 24 items in total. Hope (.756 and .760), efficacy (.805 an