International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
The Common Factors of Grit, Hope, and Optimism
Differentially Influence Suicide Resilience
Déjà N. Clement 1 , LaRicka R. Wingate 1, *, Ashley B. Cole 1 , Victoria M. O’Keefe 2 ,
David W. Hollingsworth 3 , Collin L. Davidson 4 and Jameson K. Hirsch 5
1 Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74075, USA;
dejclem@[Link] (D.N.C.); abcole@[Link] (A.B.C.)
2 Bloomberg School of Public Health, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA; vokeefe3@[Link]
3 Tuscaloosa Veterans Affair Medical Center, Tuscaloosa, AL 35404, USA; dhollingsworth@[Link]
4 Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN 55407, USA; [Link]@[Link]
5 Department of Psychology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA;
Hirsch@[Link]
* Correspondence: laricka@[Link]; Tel.: +1-405-744-5543; Fax: +1-405-744-8067




Received: 9 December 2020; Accepted: 18 December 2020; Published: 21 December 2020


Abstract: No study to date has simultaneously examined the commonalities and unique aspects
of positive psychological factors and whether these factors uniquely account for a reduction in
suicide risk. Using a factor analytic approach, the current study examined the relationships
between grit, hope, optimism, and their unique and overlapping relationships in predicting suicide
ideation. Results of principle axis factor analysis demonstrated close relationships between these
variables at both the construct and item level. Item-level analyses supported a five-factor solution
(Stick-to-Itiveness, Poor Future, Consistency of Interest, Positive Future, and Poor Pathways). Four of the
five factors (excluding Stick-to-Itiveness) were associated with suicide ideation. Additionally, results of
a multiple regression analysis indicated that two of the five factors (Consistency of Interest and Positive
Future) negatively predicted suicide ideation while Poor Future positively predicted suicide ideation.
Implications regarding the interrelationships between grit, hope, and optimism with suicide ideation
are discussed.

Keywords: grit; hope; hopelessness; hopelessness; suicide ideation

1. Introduction
Suicide is a complex phenomenon that presents as a public health concern worldwide.
Suicide phenomenon may be understood through various social, political, cultural, and economic
factors (i.e., poverty, personality traits, coping mechanisms, and environmental health) [1]. Recent data
indicate that suicide deaths in the US have surged to the highest levels in nearly 30 years [2].
Suicide is currently the second leading cause of death for young adults of ages 15–34 in the US [3].
Empirical research has identified hundreds of suicide risk factors [4]; however, these factors may have
limitations for clinical utility [5]. Counter to the extant suicide risk-focused approach, some researchers
have suggested a potential solution to better understanding suicide may be through a positive
psychological lens [6–9]. Taking a positive psychological approach to examining suicide is defined as
examining the positive emotions, thinking patterns, and experiences that decrease suicide ideation
and behavior [8]. Theoretically, the presence of protective factors may indicate that an individual
is at lower risk for attempting and/or dying by suicide in their lifetime by buffering against suicide
risk factors and increasing suicide resilience. Suicide resilience is defined as “the perceived ability,
resources, or competence to regulate suicide-related thoughts, feelings, and attitudes [9]. While many

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588; doi:10.3390/ijerph17249588 [Link]/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 2 of 13

factors (e.g., social connectedness, extroversion, and reasons for living) have previously been identified
as negatively related to suicide ideation and behaviors [10–14], limited research has examined multiple
positive psychological factors simultaneously and their unique predictive validity in relation to
suicide risk.
Studies of grit, hope, and optimism have demonstrated that these future oriented and goal-related
positive psychology factors are independently negatively associated with suicide ideation (e.g., [14–19]).
It is currently unknown whether there are common features among these positive psychology variables
that account for their protective nature or isolated components that are uniquely protective and
responsible for reducing suicide risk. These variables warrant further study in efforts to parse distinct
qualities that account for possible increase in suicide resilience. If the common features shared across
these positive psychological variables can be identified, findings could have important implications for
suicide interventions.
Grit is a future-oriented, goal-related positive psychological construct that has received recent
empirical support as a protective factor against suicide. Grit is defined as an intrapersonal psychological
strength characterized by passion and ability to pursue long-term goals and a willingness to persevere
through barriers that prevent goal attainment [16,20]. Grit also encompasses working strongly
toward challenges and maintaining interest and effort over time despite adversity and failure [20].
Previous research has demonstrated that grit was positively associated with positive affect, happiness,
and life satisfaction, and grit was negatively associated with negative affect [21,22]. Grit, along with
optimism, forgiveness, and meaning in life, were found to be conceptually related to high levels of
spirituality; these collective constructs were also inversely related to symptoms of depression [23].
While this protective factor is a relatively new construct in the suicidology literature, it has been shown
to enhance meaning in life while reducing suicide ideation [16]. Further, grit has been demonstrated
to significantly moderate and mediate the relationship between depression and suicide ideation in
a sample of Korean adults [24]. Additionally, grit has been demonstrated to significantly moderate
the relationships between hopelessness and current suicide ideation, and between hopelessness and
resolved plans and preparations for suicide [25]. While hope and grit share conceptual similarities
and empirical findings have demonstrated that they each act as resiliency factors that buffer the
risk for suicide, no research exists on the relationship between these two protective factors and their
relationship to suicide.
Similar to grit, dispositional hope is a future-oriented positive psychology concept that has received
empirical support as a protective factor against suicide. According to Hope Theory, hope encompasses:
(1) goal setting; (2) pathways or perceived ability to develop plausible routes of achieving goals; and (3)
agency or the motivation to achieve desired goals influenced by self-perceptions about one’s ability
to attain goals in the past, present, and future [26–28]. Studies have found that hope and its three
components negatively predict various indicators of suicide risk, including symptoms of depression,
rumination, and suicide ideation [29]. Although hope is negatively associated with certain suicide risk
factors, it has been positively related to an increased capability for enacting suicide in more than one
sample [10,30]. It is evident that hope has protective qualities with respect to suicide risk; however,
the positive association with increased acquired capability suggests a possible bidirectional effect.
Therefore, future research is needed to examine the specific qualities of hope to better understand the
nature of hope and its relationship with suicide ideation.
In addition to hope, hopelessness has been defined as holding negative expectancies about future
life outcomes [31]. Although hopelessness is not considered to be a positive psychological concept, it is
relevant to the present discussion because scholars have studied low hopelessness (low scores on Beck’s
Hopelessness Scale) as a proxy for “hope” [31–33]. This is different from Snyder’s Hope Theory, in that
individuals who are low in hopelessness may not exhibit goal-oriented behaviors or have positive
expectancies for life. In one study of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, those with higher
levels of insecure attachment exhibited lower levels of hope (more hopelessness [32]). Another study
of patients after discharge from the hospital indicated that levels of hope might be increased among
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 3 of 13

patients receiving peer support [33]. Additional research is needed to better understand the relationship
of low hopelessness to suicide ideation.
Dispositional optimism is defined as the general belief that one’s future will be positive and
favorable [34,35]. Research has demonstrated that dispositional optimism is related to lower incidences
of suicide ideation and behavior [8,14,35,36]. Optimism has also been found to moderate the relationship
between psychological correlates of ideation, such as rumination, hopelessness, thwarted belongingness,
and perceived burdensomeness, with suicide ideation [8,29,30,37,38]. Past research has demonstrated
moderate to large correlations between hopelessness and dispositional optimism [13,38], indicating that
these constructs are related yet distinct. Similarly, Steed (2001) found moderate to large correlations
between hopelessness, optimism, and hope, as well as a relationship between these variables and
negative affect and perceived stress. Findings also revealed that hopelessness, optimism, and hope
were similar in their convergent and discriminant validity. Currently, the Steed (2001) study is the only
known study to examine these three constructs together.
Surprisingly, only a handful of studies have examined the constructs of grit, hope, and optimism in
any arrangement or combination [25,29,30,39–42], and to our knowledge, no research has simultaneously
examined the similarities of these constructs and their relationship with suicide ideation. The aims
of the current study were to: (1) better understand the nuanced relationships between grit, hope,
low hopelessness, and optimism; (2) identify common features of these variables that account for
their protective nature; and (3) uncover whether there are distinct components that uniquely protect
against suicide ideation. In line with previous findings [25,30,40], it was hypothesized that all positive
psychological variables (optimism, hope, low hopelessness, and grit) would be positively related to each
other, and when examined in a regression analysis, would be differentially predictive of suicide ideation.
Factor analytic techniques were used to examine relationships between the positive psychological
variables at both the construct and item levels. Given that the factor analyses were exploratory in nature,
no specific factor analytic hypotheses were proffered. Additionally, the correlational relationships
between the extracted factors and suicide ideation were explored to determine whether these extracted
factors may account for potential reduction in suicide risk. Again, because the analysis was exploratory
in nature, no specific hypotheses were proffered. Increased research is needed to better understand
whether one factor is comparatively more salient in the context of suicide. This additional knowledge
could have implications for both understanding their mechanisms of influence, and how they specifically
function as protective factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Statistical Methods

A two-tailed bivariate correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between the
variables. Factor analytic techniques were conducted to examine relationships between the variables at
both the construct and item levels. Additionally, correlational analyses of the extracted factors and
suicide ideation were explored.

2.2. Participants
Participants included a convenience sample of 542 college students, at a large Midwestern
university that opted into an online research participant’s pool. Participants were not taught any class
information regarding study content in class. Ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 50 (M = 20.10,
SD = 8.82). Participants were predominately female (76.9%). A total of 83% of the participants identified
as Caucasian, 7% as American Indian, 5.7% as Hispanic/Latino, 3.7% as African American/Black,
2.6% as Biracial, 2.2% as Asian/Asian-American, and 1.3% as other.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 4 of 13

2.3. Materials
Participants completed self-report questionnaires online through a research and data management
system (SONA). Some participants received negligible course points in exchange for their participation.
The university Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved all study procedures, and all participants
provided informed consent prior to completing any of the questionnaires.
Demographics Questionnaire. Demographic information included questions about ethnicity/race,
age, and sex.
Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). The LOT-R [43] is a 10-item self-report questionnaire that
measures levels of optimism. All items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale with response options
ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). In previous research within a similar sample,
the LOT-R demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.85) [40]. The LOT-R demonstrated good
internal consistency (α = 0.80) in the present study.
The Grit Scale. The Grit Scale [21] is a 12-item self-report measure that assesses levels of grit or
persistence to work towards long-term goals. All items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). The Grit Scale contains two subscales, Consistency of
Interest and Perseverance of Effort, which are comprised of 6 items each. The Grit Scale demonstrated
good internal consistency (α = 0.81) in the current study. In a study that examined suicide risk and grit
among college students, the Grit Scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.79) [44].
Revised Trait Hope Scale (HS-R2). The HS-R2 [45] is an 18-item self-report questionnaire that
measures the construct of hope and its three subscales: goals, pathways, and agency. All items are
scored on an 8-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 8 (definitely true). In the
present study, the HS-R2 demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.90), and each subscale
demonstrated adequate internal consistency (goals: α = 0.78, pathways: α = 0.73, agency: α = 0.82) in
the current study. In a study that examined the Hope Scale and its three subscales in a sample of college
students, the subscales’ alpha coefficients were 0.90 (goals), 0.81 (pathways), and 0.89 (agency) [46].
Beck’s Hopelessness Scale (BHS). The BHS [47] is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that assesses
levels of hopelessness. The original BHS uses a dichotomous (yes or no) response format. In line with
previous empirical recommendations [48], the current study used the adapted BHS, which includes a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The BHS was reverse
scored to examine low hopelessness, or high levels of hope [32,33]. In a previous study that examined
suicide risk with hopelessness in an undergraduate college sample, the BHS demonstrated excellent
reliability (α = 0.93). The BHS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.91) in the current study.
Hopelessness-Depression Symptom Questionnaire—Suicidality Subscale (HDSQ-SS).
The HDSQ-SS [49] is a 4-item subscale that measures suicide risk. Items are scored on a scale ranging
from 0 to 3, with varied responses corresponding to each number depending on the item. Items from
the measure include statements such as “Sometimes I have thoughts of killing myself” and “I am
having thoughts of suicide, but these thoughts are somewhat under my control”. In a previous study
that examined suicide risk among college students, the scale demonstrated good internal reliability
(α = 0.89) [50]. The HDSQ-SS scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.98) in the
current study.

3. Results

3.1. Correlations
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlation coefficients of optimism, hope and its
subscales, low hopelessness, grit, and suicide ideation, are presented in Table 1. As predicted, hope and
related subscales, optimism, grit, and low hopelessness were all significantly positively associated.
Additionally, all positive psychological variables were negatively associated with suicide ideation.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 5 of 13

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Optimism, Hope and its Subscales,
Low Hopelessness, Grit, and Suicide Ideation.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Optimism -
2. Hope 0.57 ** -
3. Goals 0.49 ** 0.89 ** -
4. Agency 0.58 ** 0.92 ** 0.78 ** -
5. Pathways 0.45 ** 0.84 ** 0.59 ** 0.65 ** -
6. Low Hopelessness 0.68 ** 0.71 ** 0.63 ** 0.68 ** 0.56 ** -
7. Grit 0.44 ** 0.65 ** 0.61 ** 0.68 ** 0.44 ** 0.52 ** -
8. Suicide Ideation −0.27 ** −0.18 ** −0.11 * −0.24 ** −0.11 * −0.25 ** −0.22 ** -
M 16.62 113.25 37.71 39.36 36.19 64.53 30.36 0.21
SD 4.35 16.23 5.85 6.51 5.95 11.75 6.67 0.93
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

3.2. Multiple Regression Analysis Results

A linear multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictive relationship of each
positive psychological variable (optimism, hope, low hopelessness, and grit) on suicide ideation in the
context of the others. Results are presented in Table 2. Only optimism and grit negatively predicted
suicide ideation after considering all predictors in a single model.

Table 2. Multiple Regression Analyses of all Positive Psychological Variables and Suicide Ideation.

Suicide Ideation
B SE t
Optimism −0.04 * 0.01 −3.34
Hope 0.01 0.00 1.76
Low Hopelessness −0.01 0.01 −1.86
Grit −0.02 * 0.01 −2.62
* p < 0.01.

3.3. Construct Level—Principal Axis Factor Analysis

Six composite scores of optimism, the goals, pathways, and agency subscales of the Hope Scale,
low hopelessness, and the Grit Scale were entered in a principal axis factor analysis (PAF), with oblimin
rotation, to investigate relationships between these positively associated constructs. All composite
scores had communalities above 0.2, indicating that the composite scores shared a substantial amount
of variance with the factor they loaded.
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy statistic of 0.874 and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity were significant (χ2 (15) = 1899.29, p < 0.001), indicating that the matrix of the six composite
scores was sufficiently factorable. The scree plot of the PAF was examined to determine the number
of factors rotated to final solution. The scree plot indicated the existence of one large factor and no
transitional factors. Similarly, analysis of initial eigenvalues indicated that only one factor contained
an initial eigenvalue above 1.0. Factor loadings above 0.40 were considered significant, indicating
that the factor that the variable loaded on explained at least 16% of the variance of the variable.
All six composite scores loaded on the one factor and explained 59.38% of the variance (optimism
λ = 0.70; goals λ = 0.82; pathways λ = 0.69; agency λ = 0.91; low hopelessness λ = 0.81; grit λ = 0.70).
Overall, results of the PAF conducted at the construct level suggest that hope, optimism, grit, and low
hopelessness have similarities that are characterized by one common element.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 6 of 13

3.4. Item Level—Principal Axis Factor Analysis

To further investigate whether there were unique relationships at the item level, all items from
the LOT-R, HS-R2, BHS, and the Grit Scale were entered in a PAF with oblimin rotation. Fifty-four of
the 56 items had an extracted communality above 0.2, indicating that these items shared a substantial
amount of variance with the factor(s) that they loaded on. Because of low communality, HS-R2 item 10
(extracted communality = 0.13) and HS-R2 item 17 (extracted communality = 0.12) were withheld from
subsequent analyses. The matrix of the remaining 54 items was sufficiently factorable (KMO = 0.945;
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 (1540) = 16,600.04, p < 0.001)). The scree plot of the PAF was examined to
determine the number of factors rotated to final solution. The scree plot indicated one large factor and
four transitional factors. Eleven factors had initial eigenvalues above 1.0, but a substantial decrease
in both initial eigenvalues and percent of variance explained was seen between factors five and
six. Because of these indicators, five factors were rotated to a final solution using oblimin rotation,
explaining 46.69% of the variance (see Table 3 for factor loadings of all items). Additional PAFs were
conducted in efforts to account for any potential method effects, including a forced four factor solution
to examine variance due to the low eigenvalue of the fifth factor, and a forced two factor solution.
No significant differences emerged across the PAFs. Data and tables are available upon request.

Table 3. Factor Loadings and Communalities from a PAF with Oblimin Rotation and Five-Factor
Solution for 54 Items.

1 2 3 4 5
Item Consistency Positive Poor h2
Stick-to-Itiveness Poor Future
of Interest Future Pathways
Hope1 (Agency) 0.457 −0.586 0.512
Hope2 (Goals) 0.568 −0.330 0.420 −0.459 0.553
Hope3 (Pathways) 0.364 0.335 −0.469 0.446
Hope4 (Goals) 0.632 −0.334 0.435 −0.412 0.563
Hope5 (Goals) 0.351 −0.377 0.342
Hope6 (Agency) 0.574 −0.423 0.451 −0.538 0.564
Hope7 (Pathways) −0.306 0.424 −0.760 0.614
Hope8 (Agency) 0.477 −0.336 0.383 0.470 −0.711 0.652
Hope9 (Pathways) 0.327 −0.330 0.438 −0.728 0.599
Hope11 (Agency) 0.453 −0.329 0.392 0.444 −0.632 0.596
Hope12 (Goals) 0.542 0.373 −0.397 0.489
Hope13 (Goals) 0.449 −0.548 0.438 −0.441 0.532
Hope14 (Pathways) −0.422 0.523 −0.711 0.609
Hope15 (Agency) 0.533 −0.448 0.431 −0.324 0.471
Hope16 (Goals) 0.464 −0.440 0.493 −0.622 0.569
Hope18 (Agency) 0.564 −0.479 0.396 0.523 −0.555 0.673
LOT-R1 −0.313 0.563 −0.380 0.484
LOT-R3 −0.315 0.380 −0.456 0.434
LOT-R4 −0.379 0.642 −0.380 0.544
LOT-R7 −0.479 0.302 0.518 −0.513 0.570
LOT-R9 −0.494 0.310 0.555 −0.487 0.572
LOT-R10 −0.512 0.650 −0.436 0.559
GRIT1 0.560 −0.344 0.423 −0.346 0.442
GRIT2 0.526 0.311
GRIT3 0.643 0.468
GRIT4 0.388 0.422 −0.423 0.390
GRIT5 0.550 0.360
GRIT6 0.657 −0.429 0.429 −0.395 0.574
GRIT7 0.685 0.520
GRIT8 0.356 0.648 0.325 −0.385 0.525
GRIT9 0.520 0.392 0.336 0.485
GRIT10 0.577 0.338 −0.323 0.474
GRIT11 0.545 0.418
GRIT12 0.606 −0.355 0.455 −0.389 0.536
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 7 of 13

Table 3. Cont.

1 2 3 4 5
Item Consistency Positive Poor h2
Stick-to-Itiveness Poor Future
of Interest Future Pathways
BHS1 0.396 −0.518 0.750 −0.524 0.692
BHS2 0.303 −0.730 0.394 −0.325 0.586
BHS3 −0.314 0.637 −0.338 0.517
BHS4 −0.368 −0.320 0.363 0.417
BHS5 0.585 −0.369 0.480
BHS6 0.384 −0.390 0.656 −0.403 0.563
BHS7 −0.673 0.455 0.558
BHS8 0.589 −0.347 0.495
BHS9 −0.605 0.465
BHS10 0.433 −0.333 0.627 −0.483 0.547
BHS11 −0.789 0.409 0.658
BHS12 −0.711 0.458 −0.396 0.619
BHS13 0.317 0.387
BHS14 −0.747 0.427 −0.343 0.573
BHS15 0.403 −0.422 0.930 −0.510 0.878
BHS16 −0.848 0.333 −0.346 0.776
BHS17 −0.832 0.357 −0.361 0.732
BHS18 −0.543 0.361 0.463 0.542
BHS19 0.347 −0.451 0.718 −0.446 0.609
BHS20 −0.843 0.395 −0.307 0.759
Initial Eigenvalues 17.022 3.497 2.957 2.490 1.789 -
Extraction
16.530 3.042 2.373 1.968 1.298 -
Eigenvalues
Initial % of Variance 31.522 6.476 5.476 4.611 3.313 51.398
Extracted %
30.611 5.634 4.395 3.645 2.404 46.689
of Variance
Note: N = 542. Loadings above 0.40 are significant. In the case of cross loadings, bolded numbers represent the
strongest loading factors. Factor loadings < 0.30 are suppressed. Hope items are from the Hope Revised Scale
and are listed according to subscale: goals, agency, and pathways. LOT-R = optimism, items are from the Revised
Life Orientation Test. GRIT = grit, items are from the Grit Scale. BHS = low hopelessness, items are from Beck’s
Hopelessness Scale.

The structure matrix of the five-factor solution was examined to determine the nature of the factors.
This revealed that all 54 items loaded on at least one factor, with most items cross loading on other
factors in addition to the factor that explained the most variance of the item. The first factor consisted of
11 items and reflected goal setting and pursuing goals with diligence and dedication (Stick-to-Itiveness,
e.g., Hope Scale: “There are lots of ways around a problem.”). The second factor consisted of 12 items
and reflected negative future expectancies and failures (Poor Future, e.g., Beck’s Hopelessness Scale:
“I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”).
The third factor consisted of 6 items and reflected engagement with goals and ability to focus and follow
through on each goal (Consistency of Interest, e.g., the Grit Scale: “I finish what I begin.”). This term
is consistent with the terminology used by Duckworth et al., 2007. The fourth factor consisted of
14 items and reflected positive future expectations and enthusiasm (Positive Future, e.g., “Revised Life
Orientation Test: In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.”). The fifth factor consisted of 11 items
and reflected difficulty in determining ways to achieve goals and inability to persevere through barriers
(Poor Pathways; Hope Scale: “I have difficulty finding ways to solve problems.”). Table 4 depicts the
number and percentage of the hope, optimism, grit, and low hopelessness items that most strongly
loaded on each of the retained factors. The five factors shared small to moderate correlations with each
other (Table 5). Results of the item-level factor analysis suggest that in addition to the commonalities
shared across the constructs and across the items, there are, in fact, unique components of each construct
that differentially map onto five distinct factors.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 8 of 13

Table 4. Number and Percentage of Items That Most Strongly Loaded on Each Retained Factor.

1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0 5 1
Optimism (0%) a (0%) a (0%) a (35.7%) a (9.1%) a
(0%) b (0%) b (0%) b (83.33%) b (16.67%) b
6 1 0 0 9
Hope * (54.5%) a (8.33%) a (0%) a (0%) a (81.8%) a
(37.5%) b (6.25%) b (0%) b (0%) b (56.25%) b
0 11 0 9 0
Low
(0%) a (91.67%) a (0%) a (64.3%) a (0%) a
Hopelessness
(0%) b (55%) b (0%) b (45%) b (0%) b
5 0 6 0 1
Grit (45.5%) a (0%) a (100%) a (0%) a (9.1%) a
(41.67%) b (0%) b (50%) b (0%) b (8.33%) b
Note: a Denotes percentage of items on each retained factor composed by study measures. b Denotes percentage of
items on each study measure that most strongly loaded on the retained factors. Percentage values = percent of the
study measure that loaded on the retained factor. * Two items of the pathways subscale of the Hope Scale (items 10
and 17) demonstrated low communality in the set and did not load on any of the five factors.

Table 5. Correlation Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Five Retained Factor Scores
and Predictors of Suicide Ideation.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Stick-to-Itiveness -
2. Poor Future −0.28 ** -
3. Consistency of Interest 0.15 ** −0.24 ** -
4. Positive Future 0.40 ** −0.50 ** 0.25 ** -
5. Poor Pathways −0.40 ** 0.43 ** −0.32 ** −0.61 ** -
6. Suicide Ideation −0.05 0.24 ** −0.25 ** −0.24 ** 0.17 ** -
Note: Variables in italics are retained factors from the item-level factor analysis. ** p < 0.01.

3.5. Association of Factors with Suicide Ideation

To determine the relationship between the five extracted factors and suicide ideation, factor
scores were saved and correlated with suicide ideation (Table 5). Overall, results indicated that
four of the five factors (with the exception of Factor 1, Stick-to-Itiveness) were correlated with suicide
ideation. Factors 2 (Poor Future) and 5 (Poor Pathways) were positively correlated with suicide ideation,
while Factors 3 (Consistency of Interest) and 4 (Positive Future) were negatively correlated with suicide
ideation. To determine whether there were significant relationships beyond simple associations
between the factors and suicide ideation, a linear multiple regression analysis was conducted with the
five factor scores entered as predictors of suicide ideation (Table 6). When examined in the context
of the other factor scores, Factors 2 (Poor Future), 3 (Consistency of Interest), and 4 (Positive Future)
continued to predict suicide ideation.

Table 6. Multiple Regression Analysis of the Five Retained Factors and Suicide Ideation.

Suicide Ideation
B SE t
Stick-to-Itiveness 0.08 0.05 1.69
Poor Future 0.13 * 0.05 2.79
Consistency of Interest −0.19 ** 0.05 −4.30
Positive Future −0.15 * 0.05 −2.86
Poor Pathways −0.02 0.06 −0.30
Note: Variables in italics are retained factors from the item-level factor analysis. ** p < 0.001; * p < 0.01.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 9 of 13

4. Discussion
The current study aimed to examine the common and unique relationships between optimism,
hope, and grit, as well as their collective and unique associations with suicide ideation. The approach
taken in this study may also help provide a more parsimonious view of protective factors for suicide,
as areas of redundancy can be identified and removed while unique protective qualities can be
identified and targeted. Relationships between study variables were examined through bivariate
correlations, multiple linear regression analyses that predicted suicide ideation, and construct and
item-level factor analyses. As hypothesized, all positive psychological variables were positively related
to each other, and were differentially predictive of suicide ideation. When examined as simultaneous
predictors of suicide ideation, only optimism and grit continued to predict suicide ideation, while hope
(and low hopelessness) were no longer related. The item-level factor analysis demonstrated a five-factor
solution that revealed the following constructs: (1) Stick-to-Itiveness, (2) Poor Future, (3) Consistency
of Interest, (4) Positive Future, and (5) Poor Pathways. Results demonstrated associations between four
of the five factors and suicide ideation. Finally, in the simultaneous prediction of suicide ideation,
Factors 2, 3, and 4 continued to predict suicide, while Factors 1 and 5 were no longer related. The overall
conclusions, potential implications, and limitations will be discussed.
Previous research examining the protective nature of positive psychology variables on suicide-related
outcomes has not examined the differential impact of optimism. While studies have demonstrated the
protective qualities of hope on suicide ideation, it may be that other constructs, in this case optimism
and grit, are stronger predictors of suicide ideation when examined simultaneously. These findings are
not particularly surprising as past research has indicated that goal-directed activity (present in grit)
and optimistic thinking styles are generally protective against suicide-related outcomes [15,29]. It may
be possible that goal-directed behavior is a distal protective factor of suicide that increases individual’s
optimism or positive expectations for the future. Diligently engaging in goal-related pursuits is also
likely to increase a person’s probability of actually reaching important goals. The subsequent success
toward goals encourage positive expectancies for future success, less suicide ideation, and greater
reasons for living.
In the current study the factors of Poor Future, Consistency of Interest, and Positive Future independently
predicted suicide ideation. Interestingly, only grit items loaded onto Consistency of Interest, which accounted
for the most variance in predicting suicide ideation, and five of the six total optimism items loaded onto
Positive Future. Poor Future was composed almost solely of low hopelessness items. It stands out that
both grit and optimism were the only measures that predicted suicide ideation in the initial multiple
regression analysis, and items from these measures largely composed two of the three final factors
that predicted suicide ideation in the final regression analysis. Future studies, specifically focused
on positive psychological concepts as protective against suicide related outcomes, should continue
to explore the unique factor items indicated in the current study. While these initial findings are
preliminary, it may be possible that greater scientific understanding of the uniquely associated measure
items and predictive factors could lead to the identification of distinctive protective components against
suicide related behaviors.
Many current models of suicide tend to focus on suicide risk, leaving little room to examine suicide
from a more comprehensive standpoint. This study of suicidal behavior is multifaceted, and ] = a
theoretical model of suicide is necessary to understand such complexity (beyond simple associations
between suicide and related variables [51]). A more comprehensive approach that incorporates several
protective factors can possibly help to enhance our scientific understanding of suicide resilience within
individuals, and/or populations, that are affected by multiple risk factors for suicide, yet do not go
on to ideate, attempt, or die by suicide. The ultimate goal of advocating for the creation of a more
comprehensive model or theory of suicide—one that is explicitly inclusive of empirically supported
protective factors—is to promote an increase in the scientific study of early suicide prophylaxis and
resilience building. While the accurate prediction of those who are at near imminent risk of death
by suicide is of utmost importance, the diligent structured empirical study of protective factors
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 10 of 13

and resilience could theoretically enhance early prevention efforts, as well as more precise suicide
risk assessment.
Current findings may offer several important implications. The common and unique relationships
between optimism, hope, low hopelessness, and grit, along with their association with suicide ideation,
highlight the distinct qualities that may eventually lead to possible reductions in suicide ideation.
Finally, previous research suggests that some of the traits examined here, such as hope [52] and
optimism [53], may also be state like. Future research should explore the trait vs. state qualities of
hope and optimism both broadly and as they concern suicide-related outcomes, as they may have
the capability to be fostered in clients within a therapeutic setting. Future research is also needed to
provide further validation of the utility of targeting these constructs within the context of treatment.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current study. The participants in this study
were university students, young adults, and white. While participants did endorse suicide ideation
and risk factors for suicide, the results of the current study may not generalize to populations at higher
risk for suicide (e.g., psychiatric inpatients, people with multiple past suicide attempts, or those in
different age or ethnic groups). Additionally, the sample was predominantly female. Previous suicide
literature has documented gender differences in the development and maintenance of suicide ideation
and behaviors. For example, girls are more likely to have higher risk of depression and post-traumatic
stress disorder as a risk factor for suicide [54]. The study design was cross-sectional, prohibiting the
ability to make causal inferences. Future research should investigate resilience in more diverse samples
and using longitudinal designs.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.R.W. and C.L.D.; methodology, C.L.D. and L.R.W.; formal analysis,
C.L.D.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R.W., C.L.D., V.M.O., A.B.C., and D.W.H.; writing—review
and editing, L.R.W., C.L.D., V.M.O., A.B.C., D.W.H., J.K.H., and D.N.C.; conceptual models drafted, L.R.W.
and C.L.D.; conceptual model review and revision, L.R.W., V.M.O., A.B.C., and D.W.H.; supervision, L.R.W.;
project administration, L.R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Manuscript preparation was supported through R01CA221819-01A1S1.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. De Berardis, D.; Martinotti, G.; Di Giannantonio, M. Editorial: Understanding the complex phenomenon of
suicide: From research to clinical practice. Front. Psychiatry 2018, 9, 61. [CrossRef]
2. Hedegaard, H.; Curtin, S.C.; Warner, M. Suicide Rates in the United States Continue to Increase. NCHS Data Brief.
2018, 309, 1–8.
3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention. Available online:
[Link]/injury/wisqars/[Link] (accessed on 27 July 2020).
4. O’Connor, R.C.; Nock, M.K. The psychology of suicidal behavior. Lancet Psychiatry 2014, 1, 73–85. [CrossRef]
5. Tucker, R.P.; Crowley, K.J.; Davidson, C.L.; Gutierrez, P.M. Risk factors, warning signs, and drivers of suicide:
What are they, how do they differ, and why does it matter? Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2015, 45, 679–689.
[CrossRef]
6. Cole, A.B.; Wingate, L.R. Considering race and ethnicity using positive psychological approaches to
suicide. In A Positive Psychological Approach to Suicide; Hirsch, J.K., Chang, J.K., Rabon, E.C., Eds.; Springer:
New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 111–135.
7. Rabon, J.K.; Hirsch, J.K.; Chang, E.C. Positive Psychology and Suicide Prevention: An Introduction and
Overview of the Literature. In A Positive Psychological Approach to Suicide, Advances in Mental Health and
Addiction; Hirsch, J.K., Chang, E.C., Rabon, J.K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–15.
8. Wingate, L.R.; Burns, A.B.; Gordon, K.H.; Perez, M.; Walker, R.L.; Williams, F.M.; Joiner, T. E., Jr. Suicide and
Positive Cognitions: Positive Psychology Applied to the Understanding and Treatment of Suicidal Behavior.
In Cognition and Suicide: Theory, Research, and Therapy; Ellis, T.E., Ed.; American Psychological Association:
Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 261–283. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 11 of 13

9. Osman, A.; Gutierrez, P.M.; Muehlenkamp, J.J.; Dix-Richardson, F.; Barrios, F.X.; Kopper, B.A. Suicide Resilience
Inventory–25: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties. Psychol. Rep. 2004, 94, 1349–1360.
[CrossRef]
10. Chang, E.C.; Martos, T.; Sallay, V.; Chang, O.D.; Wright, K.M.; Najarian, A.S.M.; Lee, J. Examining optimism
and hope as protective factors of suicide risk in Hungarian college students” Is risk highest among those
lacking positive psychological protection? J. Cogn. Psychother 2017, 41, 278–288. [CrossRef]
11. Davidson, C.L.; Wingate, L.R.; Slish, M.L.; Rasmussen, K.A. The great black hope: Hope and its relation to
suicide risk among African Americans. Suicide Life Threat. Behav. 2010, 40, 170–180. [CrossRef]
12. Lewinsohn, P.M.; Rohde, P.; Seeley, J.R. Psychosocial risk factors for future adolescent suicide attempts.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1994, 62, 297–305. [CrossRef]
13. Teismann, T.; Brailovskaia, J.; Margaf, J. Positive mental health, positive affect, and suicide ideation. Int. J.
Clin. Health Psychol. 2019, 19, 165–169. [CrossRef]
14. Tucker, R.P.; O’Connor, R.C.; Wingate, L.R. An investigation of the relationship between rumination styles,
hope, and suicide ideation through the lens of the integrated motivational volitional model of suicidal
behavior. Arch. Suicide Res. 2016, 20, 553–566. [CrossRef]
15. Hirsch, J.K.; Conner, K.R.; Duberstein, P.R. Optimism and suicide ideation among young adult college
students. Arch. Suicide Res. 2007, 11, 177–185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kaniuka, A.R.; Oakey-Frost, N.; Moscardini, E.H.; Tucker, R.P.; Rasmussen, S.; Cramer, R.J. Grit, humor,
and suicidal behavior: Results from a comparative study of adults in the United States and United Kingdom.
Pers. Individ. Differ. 2020, 163, 110047. [CrossRef]
17. Kleiman, E.M.; Adams, L.M.; Kashdan, T.B.; Riskind, J.H. Gratitude and grit indirectly reduce risk of suicidal
ideations by enhancing meaning in life: Evidence for a mediated moderation model. J. Res. Pers. 2013,
47, 539–546. [CrossRef]
18. Marie, L.; Taylor, S.E.; Basu, N.; Fadoir, N.A.; Schuler, K.; McKelvey, D.; Smith, P.N. The protective effects of
grit on suicidal ideation in individuals with trauma and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. J. Clin. Psychol.
2019, 75, 1701–1714. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Range, L.M.; Penton, S.R. Hope, hopelessness, and suicidality in college students. Psychol. Rep. 1994, 75, 456–458.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. White, E.J.; Kraines, M.A.; Tucker, R.P.; Wingate, L.R.; Wells, T.T.; Grant, D.M. Rumination’s effect on suicide
ideation through grit and gratitude: A path analysis study. Psychiatry Res. 2017, 251, 97–102. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
21. Duckworth, A.L.; Peterson, C.; Matthews, M.D.; Kelly, D.R. Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term
goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1087–1101. [CrossRef]
22. Singh, K.; Jha, S.D. Positive and negative affect, and grit as predictors of happiness and life satisfaction.
J. Indian Acad. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 34, 40–45.
23. Barton, Y.A.; Miller, L. Spirituality and positive psychology go hand in hand: An investigation of multiple
empirically derived profiles and related protective benefits. J. Relig Health 2015, 54, 829–843. [CrossRef]
24. Kim, Y.J. Study on the role of grit in Korean elderly suicide ideation. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2015, 91, 67–70.
[CrossRef]
25. Pennings, S.M.; Law, K.C.; Green, B.A.; Anestis, M.D. The impact of grit on the relationship between
hopelessness and suicidality. Int. J. Cogn. Ther. 2015, 8, 130–142. [CrossRef]
26. Snyder, C.R. The Psychology of Hope: You Can Get There from Here; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
27. Snyder, C.R. Handbook of Hope: Theory, Measures, and Applications; The Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000.
28. Snyder, C.R. The past and possible futures of hope. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 19, 11–28. [CrossRef]
29. Tucker, R.P.; Wingate, L.R.; O’Keefe, V.M.; Mills, A.C.; Rasmussen, K.; Davidson, C.L.; Grant, D.M. Rumination
and suicidal ideation: The moderating roles of hope and optimism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2013, 55, 606–611.
[CrossRef]
30. O’Keefe, V.M.; Wingate, L.R. The role of hope and optimism in suicide risk for American Indians/Alaska
Natives. Suicide Life Threat. Behav. 2013, 43, 621–633. [CrossRef]
31. Beck, A.T.; Weissman, A.; Lester, D.; Trexler, L. The measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness scale.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1974, 42, 861–865. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 12 of 13

32. Ringer, J.M.; Buchanan, E.E.; Olesek, K.; Lysaker, P.H. Anxious and avoidant attachment styles and indicators
of recovery in schizophrenia: Associations with self-esteem and hope. Psychol. Psychother. 2014, 87, 209–221.
[CrossRef]
33. Simpson, A.; Flood, C.; Rowe, J.; Quigley, J.; Henry, S.; Hall, C.; Bowers, L. Results of a pilot randomised
controlled trial to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of peer support in increasing hope and quality
of life in mental health patients discharged from hospital in the UK. BMC Psychiatry 2014, 14, 30. [CrossRef]
34. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. Engagement, Disengagement, Coping, and Catastrophe. In Handbook of Competence
and Motivation; Elliot, A.J., Dweck, C.S., Eds.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 527–547.
35. Yi, S.; Chang, E.C.; Chang, O.D.; Seward, N.J.; McAvoy, L.B.; Krause, E.R.; Schaffer, M.R.; Novak, C.J.;
Ip, K.; Hirsch, J.K. Coping and suicide in college students: Does being optimistic matter? Crisis 2020, 0, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
36. Sànchez-Álvarez, N.; Extrema, N.; Rey, L.; Chang, E.C.; Chang, O.D. Optimism and gratitude on suicide
risk in Spanish adults: Evidence for doubling up or doubling down? J. Clin. Psychol. 2020, 76, 1882–1892.
[CrossRef]
37. Bryan, C.J.; Ray-Sannerud, B.N.; Morrow, C.E.; Etienne, N. Optimism reduces suicidal ideation and weakens
the effect of hopelessness among military personnel. Cognit. Ther. Res. 2013, 37, 996–1003. [CrossRef]
38. Rasmussen, K.A.; Wingate, L.R. The role of optimism in the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal
behavior. Suicide Life Threat. Behav. 2011, 41, 137–148. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Bryant, F.B.; Cvengros, J.A. Distinguishing hope and optimism: Two sides of a coin, or two separate coins?
J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2004, 23, 273–302. [CrossRef]
40. Feldman, D.B.; Kubota, M. Hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and academic achievement: Distinguishing
constructs and levels of specificity in predicting college grade-point average. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2015,
37, 210–216. [CrossRef]
41. Gallagher, M.W.; Lopez, S. Positive expectancies and mental health: Identifying the unique contributions of
hope and optimism. J. Posit. Psychol. 2009, 4, 548–556. [CrossRef]
42. Magaletta, P.; Oliver, J. The hope construct will and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism,
and general well-being. J. Clin. Psychol. 1999, 55, 539–551. [CrossRef]
43. Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S.; Bridges, M.W. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety,
self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 1063–1078.
[CrossRef]
44. Blalock, D.V.; Young, K.C.; Kleiman, E.M. Stability amidst turmoil: Grit buffers the effects of negative life
events on suicidal ideation. Psychiatry Res. 2015, 228, 781–784. [CrossRef]
45. Shorey, H.S.; Snyder, C.R. Exploring the possibility of a revised Hope Scale. In Proceedings of the American
Psychological Association Convention, Honolulu, HI, USA, 28 July–1 August 2004.
46. Anestis, M.D.; Moberg, F.B.; Arnau, R.C. Hope and the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal
Behavior: Replication and Extension of Prior Findings. Suicide Life-Threat. Behav. 2014, 44, 175–187.
[CrossRef]
47. Steed, L. Further validity and reliability evidence for Beck Hopelessness Scale scores in a nonclinical sample.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2001, 61, 303–316. [CrossRef]
48. Marshall, G.N.; Wortman, C.B.; Kusulas, J.W.; Hervig, L.K.; Vickers, R.R, Jr. Distinguishing optimism from
pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 1992,
62, 1067–1074. [CrossRef]
49. Metalsky, G.I.; Joiner, T.E. The Hopelessness Depression Symptom Questionnaire. Cognit. Ther. Res. 1997,
21, 359–384. [CrossRef]
50. Marraccini, M.E.; Brick, L.A.; O’Neill, J.C.; Weyandt, L.L.; Buchanan, A.L. Self-injurious thoughts and
behaviors among college students: A latent class analysis. Arch. Suicide Res. 2020, 21, 1–20. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
51. Nock, M.K.; Borges, G.; Bromet, E.J.; Cha, C.B.; Kessler, R.C.; Lee, S. Suicide and suicidal behavior.
Epidemiol. Rev. 2008, 30, 133–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Snyder, C.R.; Sympson, S.C.; Ybasco, F.C.; Borders, T.F.; Babyak, M.A.; Higgins, R.L. Development and
validation of the State Hope Scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 321. [CrossRef]
53. Kluemper, D.H.; Little, L.M.; Degroot, T. State or trait: Effects of state optimism on job-related outcomes.
J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 209–231. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9588 13 of 13

54. Lamis, D.A.; Lester, D. Gender differences in risk and protective factors for suicidal ideation among college
students. J. Coll. Stud. Psychother. 2013, 27, 62–77. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license ([Link]