repost discussion 11
Feeling Hopeful Inspires Support for Social Change
Katharine H. Greenaway
University of Queensland
Aleksandra Cichocka
University of Kent
Ruth van Veelen
University of Groningen
Tiina Likki
University of Lausanne
Nyla R. Branscombe
University of Kansas
Hope is an emotion that has been implicated in social change efforts, yet little research has examined whether
feeling hopeful actually motivates support for social change. Study 1 (N = 274) confirmed that hope is associated with greater support for social change in two countries with different political contexts. Study 2
(N = 165) revealed that hope predicts support for social change over and above other emotions often investi- gated in collective action research. Study 3 (N = 100) replicated this finding using a hope scale and showed the effect occurs independent of positive mood. Study 4 (N = 58) demonstrated experimentally that hope motivates support for social change. In all four studies, the effect of hope was mediated by perceived efficacy to achieve
social equality. This research confirms the motivating potential of hope and illustrates the power of this emotion
in generating social change.
KEY WORDS: Hope, social change, perceived efficacy, intergroup relations
People have long recognized the power of emotions in motivating social action, although
research has typically focused on the role of negative emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt (e.g.,
Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; Wohl, Branscombe, & Klar, 2006). In a refreshing new direction,
calls have been made to consider the motivating potential of positive emotions as catalysts for social
change, particularly among advantaged group members who are typically regarded either as passive
beneficiaries of inequality or active combatants of social change (Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor,
2009). The present research focuses on hope as a positive emotion that has the potential to propel
people into social action. In particular, hope may hold the key to motivating advantaged groups to
assist in achieving social change.
Political Psychology, Vol. xx, No. xx, 2014
doi: 10.1111/pops.12225
1
0162-895X © 2014 International Society of Political Psychology
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ,
and PO Box 378 Carlton South, 3053 Victoria, Australia
(N =
(N =
(N =
(N =
89
0162-895X VC 2014 International Society of Political Psychology
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ,
and PO Box 378 Carlton South, 3053 Victoria, Australia
Political Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2016
doi: 10.1111/pops.12225
bs_bs_banner
What Is Hope?
Hope is a future-oriented emotion that is experienced in the present when an individual believes
that current circumstances can and should change (Baumgartner, Pieters, & Bagozzi, 2008). It
involves generating future alternatives to compare against present circumstances and feeling good
about those future alternatives (Staats & Stassen, 1985). Hope is therefore an emotion that pairs
positive feelings about the future with a desire for present circumstances to change (Lazarus, 1991,
1999).
Research has identified appraisals that generate hope and action tendencies that follow from
experiencing hope (Frijda, 1986). In terms of appraisals, hope is experienced when one visualizes a
future goal that has at least a moderate chance of being achieved (Lazarus, 1999). Although
researchers have speculated that hope should be associated with readiness to take action directed
toward achieving a desired outcome (Averill, Catlin, & Chon, 1990), the specific action tendencies
that stem from hope are less clear (Lazarus, 1999).
Hope and Social Change
Emerging research has begun to investigate hope in the context of intractable intergroup
conflicts (e.g., Halperin, Crisp, Husnu, Dweck, & Gross 2012). Feeling hopeful in the context of such
conflicts is associated with positive intergroup outcomes. For example, in the case of intractable
conflicts, hope predicts lower desire for retaliation (Moeschberger, Dixon, Niens, & Cairns, 2005),
support for concessions (Cohen-Chen, Halperin, Crisp, & Gross, 2013), willingness to provide
intergroup aid (Halperin & Gross, 2011), and reduced dehumanization of out-groups (Halperin,
Bar-Tal, Nets-Zehngut, & Almog, 2008). We investigate hope in relation to intergroup contexts that
involve ongoing inequality with clear advantaged majority and disadvantaged minority groups. We
are particularly interested in methods of encouraging advantaged groups to take action on behalf of
disadvantaged groups. This can be difficult to achieve, given that advantaged groups are often
motivated to inhibit, rather than support, social change (e.g., Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Sidanius
& Pratto, 2001). A critical question, therefore, is how to motivate advantaged groups to support social
action that ultimately threatens their privileged position.
There are reasons to expect that hope might inspire support for social change. Anecdotally,
political leaders successfully generate support for social change by using messages of hope to inspire
their followers (Branzei, 2012; Obama, 2006). Indeed, Barack Obama was elected as the first African
American President of the United States after campaigning on a platform of hope and change.
Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to hope to mobilize support for the civil rights movement
(Washington, 1991). Although researchers have begun to take an interest in hope in intergroup
contexts, most studies to date investigate hope as an outcome or treat it as a mediator (e.g., Halperin
& Gross, 2011). While research has shown that a belief in change generates feelings of hope (e.g.,
Cohen-Chen et al., 2013), the opposite path has not been investigated. It is therefore unclear whether
hope can be used to generate support for social change or if it is merely a by-product of believing
change is possible, or whether both processes operate.
What Kind of Hope?
It is possible to experience hope about a specific situation or event (e.g., hoping an intergroup
relationship will become more equal), although individuals may also vary in their general tendency
to hope. In the present research, we investigate whether hope must be connected specifically to an
intergroup context in order to inspire support for social change. It seems intuitive that people must
hope that intergroup relations can get better in order to be willing to work towards achieving that end.
Greenaway et al.290 Greenaway et al.
Yet theory suggests that incidental hope that is unconnected to an intergroup context might also “spill
over” into a general desire for things to change (Lazarus, 1991, 1999). We therefore investigated
hope that is unconnected to a specific intergroup relationship (Studies 1, 2, and 4), as well as hope
with a specific intergroup referent (Studies 3 and 4) to investigate whether hope increases support for
social change.
In the present research, we focus on individual feelings of hope and their implications for
collective behavior. Although collective feelings of hope for the future of one’s own group may
motivate a similar desire for social change, we investigate how feeling hopeful might lead advan-
taged group members to support disadvantaged group members in their efforts to achieve social
equality. In addition to testing whether and what type of hope motivates support for social change,
we also aim to uncover a mechanism of this effect.
Hope and Efficacy
We propose that hope inspires support for social change through heightened perceived efficacy
to change the status quo. According to Snyder (2002), hope acts through processes of agency and
planning—key characteristics of the efficacious individual (Bandura, 1982). In addition, hope is
associated with a range of processes linked with perceived efficacy, including beliefs that goals are
achievable (Lazarus, 1999) and engagement in goal-directed thinking and behavior (Chartrand &
Cheng, 2002; Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2002; Vohs & Schmeichel, 2002). Work by Cohen-Chen and
colleagues (2013, 2014) shows that believing a situation can change inspires feelings of hope and
efficacy. However, other theorizing suggests that efficacy may be an outcome or process of hope,
insofar as hope is thought to operate through pathways of agency and planning (Averill et al., 1990;
Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991; Snyder, 2002). Consistent with this theorizing, we conceptualize
hope as a positive emotion that has the capacity to generate perceived efficacy to bring about desired
outcomes.
Efficacy and Social Change
Considerable research demonstrates that efficacy beliefs play a critical role in motivating people
to collective action (e.g., Tausch & Becker, 2013; Thomas, Mavor, & McGarty, 2012; Van Zomeren,
Postmes, & Spears, 2008); people must believe change is possible in order to be motivated to achieve
it (Bandura, 1982). Much of the research that investigates the role of efficacy in social change efforts
has focused on disadvantaged group members attempting to improve their group’s position (e.g., Van
Zomeren et al., 2008). However, research also demonstrates that enhancing efficacy beliefs among
advantaged group members increases their willingness to work to achieve social equality (e.g.,
Cohen-Chen, Halperin, Saguy, & Van Zomeren, 2014; Stewart, Latu, Branscombe, & Denney, 2010;
Stewart, Latu, Branscombe, Phillips, & Denney, 2012). Indeed, efforts at collective action will have
a better chance at succeeding if advantaged group members can be motivated to act alongside
disadvantaged groups.
The Present Research
The present research seeks to contribute to the literature on hope and bring this emotion to bear on
the important social problem of how to motivate support for social change among advantaged members
of society. First, we integrate the work on hope as an emotion with the social change literature. Second,
drawing on previous research, we test efficacy as a mechanism through which hope operates to
influence support for social change. We assess both perceived advantaged and disadvantaged group
efficacy as mediators of the relationship between hope and support for social change and propose that
Hope and Social Change 3
Snyder, 2002; Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991). Consistent with this theorizing, we conceptualize
Hope and Social Change 91
only when advantaged groups believe themselves to be efficacious—regardless of how efficacious they
believe the disadvantaged group to be—will they support social change.
Study 1
Study 1 tested whether hope is associated with support for social change among advantaged
group members in two countries with different social and political climates: the Netherlands and the
United States. In the Netherlands, the study focused on relations between Turkish-Dutch (disadvan-
taged) and native-Dutch (advantaged) groups. To avoid cueing an Obama-inspired association in the
American sample, Hispanic Americans were chosen as the disadvantaged group rather than African
Americans. Participants completed the same survey in both samples, differing only in terms of the
reference groups.
Method
Participants
Participants in the Netherlands (N = 84; 72 female; Mage = 18.81, SD = 1.68) were native Dutch psychology students who received course credit for their participation. Participants in the United
States (N = 110, 72 female; Mage = 35.29, SD = 13.74) were non-Hispanic community members recruited from the website Amazon Mechanical Turk.
Materials and Measures
Efficacy. Three items measured efficacy beliefs about the advantaged group (e.g., “[Advantaged
group members] can effectively achieve the goal of reducing inequality between [disadvantaged
group] and [advantaged group]”; Van Zomeren, Leach, & Spears, 2010), α = .92).1 The same three items were reworded to measure efficacy beliefs about the disadvantaged group, α = .90. Items were scored on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Social change. Nine items measured support for social change. Three items assessed general
support (e.g., “In order for intergroup inequality to be reduced, we need significant social change at
the level of [nation] as a whole”; Subašić & Reynolds, 2009). Three items tapped specific behavioral
intentions (e.g., “I would participate in a protest rally aimed at bettering the position of [disadvan-
taged group]”; Subašić & Reynolds, 2009). Three items measured support for political actions (e.g.,
“I think universities should try to increase the number of [disadvantaged group members] in their
applicant pool”; Leach et al., 2007). The items were scored on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to
7 (Strongly Agree), and together formed a reliable scale of support for social change, α = .90. Hope. Hope was measured using a single item: “Right now, to what extent do you feel hopeful?”
on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much). Means, standard deviations, and correlations are
presented in Table 1.
Results
We conducted a series of multiple regressions predicting first, perceived advantaged and disad-
vantaged group efficacy, and second, support for social change. In this second, hierarchical, regres-
1 Our original aim was to expose advantaged group members to an emotional message from a disadvantage group and measure
attitude change. Participants were exposed to manipulations that varied the emotional content (hope vs. fear) and frame of
the message (about the disadvantaged group vs. the national group). Those manipulations had no effect on the measured
variables, and controlling for the manipulations does not change the results.
Greenaway et al.492 Greenaway et al.
sion hope was entered at the first step followed by the two perceived efficacy measures at the second
step. All results remain significant when controlling for country of origin. Results of the regression
analyses for Studies 1–3 are presented in Table 2.
Efficacy
Hope predicted greater perceived advantaged group efficacy, R2 = .07, F(1,192) = 14.23, β = .26, p < .001, and greater perceived disadvantaged group efficacy, R2 = .07, F(1,192) = 13.83, β = .26, p < .001.
Social Change
Hope predicted greater support for social change in Step 1, R2 = .06, F(1,192) = 12.41, β = .25, p < .001. Efficacy beliefs accounted for a significant amount of variance in Step 2, R2Δ = .25, FΔ (2,190) = 33.19, p < .001. Only perceived advantaged group efficacy was a significant predictor of greater support for social change, β = .52, p < .001. Perceived disadvantaged group efficacy was nonsignificant, β = −.03, p = .703. The relationship between hope and social change became non- significant in Step 2, β = .12, p = .069.
Indirect Effects
Bootstrapping analyses with 10,000 resamples were conducted to test the indirect effect of hope
on support for social change through advantaged and disadvantaged group efficacy (Hayes, 2013).
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations (in parentheses), and Correlations Among Focal Variables in Study 1
1 2 3 4 5
1. Country (U.S. = 1, Netherlands = −1) 0.13 (0.99) .01 −.32*** −.04 −.18 2. Hope 4.45 (1.53) .26*** .26*** .25**
3. Advantaged efficacy 4.36 (1.40) .28*** .54***
4. Disadvantaged efficacy 4.72 (1.23) .15*
5. Social change 3.84 (1.11)
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 2. Regression Results in Studies 1–3
Disadvantaged
Group Efficacy
Advantaged
Group Efficacy
Support for
Social Change
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
Step 1
Hope .26*** .09 .31* .26*** .25* .46*** .25*** .24** .45***
Happiness – .27* −.05 – .08 −.38** – .09 −.38** Anger – .07 .17 – .03 −.25 – .17 .03 Sadness – .04 .02 – .21 .36* – .14 .33*
Fear – .02 −.02 – –.12 −.15 – −.16 −.08 Positive affect – – .22 – – .23* – – .32*
Negative affect – – −.17 – – −.09 – – −.14 Step 2
Advantaged group efficacy – – – – – – .52*** .46*** .28*
Disadvantaged group efficacy – – – – – – −.03 −.09 −.08
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients for Study 1 (S1), Study 2 (S2), and Study 3 (S3). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Hope and Social Change 5Hope and Social Change 93
There was a significant indirect effect of hope on support for social change through perceived
advantaged group efficacy (IE = 0.09, SE = .03, bias-corrected 95% CI: .043, .170). The indirect effect controlled for perceived disadvantaged group efficacy, although the effect remains significant
without this control variable. The indirect effect through perceived disadvantaged group efficacy was
nonsignificant (IE = −0.00, SE = .01, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.036, .021; see Figure 1). We tested an alternative model in which perceived advantaged group efficacy increased support
for social change via hope (controlling for perceived disadvantaged group efficacy). This model was
nonsignificant (IE = .02, SE = .02, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.002, .062).
Discussion
As expected, hope predicted support for social change among advantaged group members. The
relationship was mediated by perceived efficacy of the advantaged group to achieve social change.
Hope was associated with greater perceived efficacy of advantaged and disadvantaged groups.
However, only perceived advantaged group efficacy significantly predicted support for social change.
Research shows that perceived in-group efficacy increases willingness to engage in collective action
(Van Zomeren et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 2010), while we found no evidence for perceived out-group
efficacy increasing one’s own engagement in collective action. This finding underlines the impor-
tance of promoting efficacy among advantaged group members, who could otherwise be unmotivated
to change the status quo.
Study 2
In Study 2, we investigated whether hope accounts for variance over and above other emotions
linked with social change or that share cognitive or affective features of hope. We included fear as
S1:.26***
S2:.25*
S3:.46***
Advantaged Group Efficacy
Disadvantaged Group Efficacy
Support for Social Change
S1:.26***
S2:.09 S3:.31*
S1:.52***
S2:.46***
S3:.28*
S1:-.03 S2:-.09 S3:-.08
S1:.12 (.25***) S2:.13 (.24*) S3:.35** (.45***)Feelings of Hope
Figure 1. The effect of hope on support for social change via perceived advantaged and disadvantaged group efficacy
(Studies 1–3). Figure reports standardized coefficients for Study 1 (S1), Study 2 (S2), and Study 3 (S3). Effects in S2 and S3
control for other emotions. The total effects are presented in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Greenaway et al.6
(Stewart et al., 2010; Van Zomeren et al., 2004), while we found no evidence for perceived out-group
94 Greenaway et al.
a predictor because hope and fear are both anticipatory emotions experienced at the prospect of a
future event (Baumgartner et al., 2008). We included happiness because hope and happiness are
matched on valence (both are positive emotions) but differ on temporal focus (hope is a future-
oriented and happiness a present-oriented emotion). We also measured anger and sadness, which are
relevant emotions in collective action research (e.g., Livingstone, Spears, Manstead, Bruder, &
Shepherd, 2011; Smith, Cronin, & Kessler, 2008).
Method
Participants
Study 2 focused on relations between Native Americans (disadvantaged group) and non-Native
Americans (advantaged group). One hundred and sixty-five non-Native Americans completed the
study (82 female; Mage = 37.18, SD = 13.47). Participants were recruited from Mechanical Turk and were paid to complete the study.
Materials and Measure
The dependent and mediating variables were measured as in Study 1 (αs > .88), reworded to refer to this intergroup context.2 Current emotions were measured by asking participants the degree
to which they felt five emotions (“Right now, to what extent do you feel: hopeful/fearful/happy/
angry/sad?”) on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much). Means, standard deviations, and
correlations are presented in Table 3.
Results
Efficacy
Together, the emotions predicted a significant amount of variance in advantaged efficacy,
R2 = .10, F(5,158) = 3.55, p = .005. Of the five emotions, hope was the only significant predictor of advantaged group efficacy, β = .25, p = .013. No other emotion was significant, βs < .21, ps > .068.
2 Participants in Study 2 were exposed to the same manipulation described in Study 1. The manipulations had no effects on
the measured variables, and controlling for the manipulations does not change the results.
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations (in parentheses), and Correlations Among Focal Variables in Study 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Hope 4.78 (1.60) .63*** −.09 −.14 −.19* .27** .24** .27** 2. Happiness 4.37 (1.62) −.17* −.30*** −.40*** .16* .29*** .17* 3. Fear 1.72 (1.28) .66*** .55*** −.02 .03 −.01 4. Anger 1.66 (1.30) .72*** .04 .01 .11
5. Sadness 2.14 (1.61) .09 −.04 .09 6. Advantaged
efficacy
4.88 (1.27) .31*** .49***
7. Disadvantaged
efficacy
4.55 (1.39) .16
8. Social change 4.56 (1.10)
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Hope and Social Change 7Hope and Social Change 95
Together, the emotions predicted a significant amount of variance in disadvantaged efficacy,
R2 = .10, F(5,158) = 3.41, p = .006. Happiness positively predicted perceived disadvantaged group efficacy, β = .27, p = .011; no other emotion was significant, βs < .09, ps > .373.
Social Change
Together, the emotions predicted a significant amount of variance in social change, R2 = .11, F(5,158) = 3.87, p = .002. Of the five emotions, hope was the only significant predictor of support for social change in Step 1, β = .24, p = .014. No other emotion was significant, βs < .17, ps > .108. Efficacy beliefs accounted for a significant amount of variance in Step 2, R2Δ = .18, FΔ(2,156) = 19.50, p < .001. Only advantaged group efficacy was a significant predictor of support for social change, β = .46, p < .001. Perceived disadvantaged group efficacy was nonsignificant, β = −.09, p = .246. The relationship between hope and social change became nonsignificant in Step 2, β = .13, p = .134.
Indirect Effects
Bootstrapping analyses with 10,000 resamples tested the indirect effect of hope on support for
social change through perceived advantaged and disadvantaged group efficacy, controlling for the
other emotions. The indirect effect of hope on support for social change through advantaged group
efficacy was significant (controlling for other emotions and disadvantaged efficacy; IE = 0.08, SE = .06, bias-corrected 95% CI: .009, .185; see Figure 1). The indirect effect remains significant without including the covariates. The indirect effect through disadvantaged group efficacy was
nonsignificant (controlling for other emotions and advantaged efficacy; IE = −0.01, SE = .01, bias- corrected 95% CI: −.036, .010). The effect of the alternative model of advantaged group efficacy increasing social change through hope was also nonsignificant (IE = 0.02, SE = .02, CI: −.008 to .069).
Discussion
Replicating the findings of Study 1 with Native Americans as the target, hope was associated
with greater support for social change, and this relationship was mediated by greater perceived
advantaged group efficacy. The relationships persisted even when adjusting for emotions typically
associated with support for social change (such as sadness, anger, and fear) or another positive
emotion (i.e., happiness). Hope was the only emotion that independently predicted perceived advan-
taged group efficacy and support for social change.
Study 3
A limitation of the first two studies is that hope was measured using a single item. Study 3
addressed this issue by employing multiple items to measure hope and assess its impact on support
for social change. Moreover, hope as measured in Studies 1 and 2 had no specific intergroup referent.
In Study 3, we included a measure of hope that referred explicitly to the intergroup context.
Another issue is that hope may predict support for social change not only because it increases
perceived efficacy but also because of shared variance with positive affect. In Study 2 we measured
happiness, another positive emotion, and after controlling its variance shared with hope, we found
that hope alone predicted support for social change. Nevertheless, in Study 2 happiness was posi-
tively correlated with support for social change. To rule out the positive affect alternative explana-
tion, in Study 3 we measured general positive affect and controlled for its effects.
Greenaway et al.896 Greenaway et al.
Method
Participants
Study 3 again focused on relations between Native Americans (disadvantaged group) and
non-Native Americans (advantaged group). One hundred non-Native Americans completed the study
(43 female; Mage = 38.48, SD = 13.47). Participants were recruited from Mechanical Turk.
Materials and Measures
Emotions. Participants reported their emotions about the intergroup relationship between Native
and non-Native Americans by responding to the stem “When you think about relations between
Native and non-Native Americans, to what extent do you feel” by rating several emotions. Four
synonyms were chosen for each emotion of interest: hope (hopeful, aspiration, positive expectation,
wishful; α = .91), happiness (happy, content, glad, satisfied; α = .96), anger (angry, outraged, exas- perated, irritated; α = .92), fear (fearful, worried, uncertain, concerned; α = .91), and sadness (sad, unhappy, depressed, sorrowful; α = .90).
To rule out the possibility that the effects of hope on support for social change are driven by
general positive mood, we included a measure of mood in the form of the Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants reported their feelings on 10
indicators of positive affect (e.g., enthusiastic; α = .91) and negative affect (e.g., hostile; α = .92). All emotion items were scored on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much).
Support for social change and perceived efficacy were measured as in Study 2 (αs > .88). Means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 4.
Results
The emotion scales were entered simultaneously in a standard multiple regression to assess their
unique association with perceived efficacy and support for social change, controlling for any shared
variance. For the mediation analyses, the emotion scales were entered in Step 1 of a hierarchical
multiple regression followed by perceived advantaged and disadvantaged group efficacy in Step 2.
Efficacy
Together, the seven emotion scales significantly predicted perceived advantaged group efficacy,
R2 = .25, F(7,92) = 4.32, p < .001. The hope scale was the strongest significant positive predictor of advantaged group efficacy, β = .46, p < .001, although sadness, β = .36, p = .028, and positive mood, β = .23, p = .040, were also significant positive predictors. The happiness scale was a significant negative predictor of perceived advantaged group efficacy, β = −.38, p = .004. Anger, fear, and negative mood were nonsignificant, βs < −.25, ps > .225.
Together, the seven emotion scales significantly predicted perceived disadvantaged group effi-
cacy, R2 = .18, F(7,92) = 2.85, p = .010. The hope scale was the only significant positive predictor of disadvantaged group efficacy, β = .31, p = .017. Positive mood was a nonsignificant positive predic- tor, β = .22, p = .059, and all of the other emotion scales were nonsignificant, βs < −.17, ps > .11.
Support for Social Change
Together, the seven emotion scales significantly predicted support for social change in Step 1,
R2 = .26, F(7,92) = 5.93, p < .001. The hope scale was the strongest positive predictor of support for
Hope and Social Change 9Hope and Social Change 97
T a
b le
4 .
M e a n
s, S
ta n
d a rd
D e v
ia ti
o n
s (i
n p
a re
n th
e se
s) ,
a n
d C
o rr
e la
ti o
n s
A m
o n
g F
o c a l
V a ri
a b
le s
in S
tu d
y 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
0
1 .
H o
p e
sc a le
4 .2
6 (1
.5 4
) .6
3 *
* *
−. 0
9 −.
2 7
* *
−. 2
0 *
.3 9
* *
* −.
0 4
.3 2
* *
.3 2
* *
.2 7
* *
2 .
H a p
p in
e ss
sc a le
3 .2
7 (1
.7 5
) −.
1 3
−. 3
5 *
* *
−. 2
7 *
* .4
0 *
* *
−. 0
1 .0
1 .1
7 −.
0 6
3 .
F e a r
sc a le
2 .8
4 (1
.4 8
) .6
7 *
* *
.5 1
* *
* .0
6 .2
9 *
* −.
1 4
.0 5
−. 0
6
4 .
A n
g e r
sc a le
2 .6
3 (1
.5 9
) .8
0 *
* *
.0 7
.4 3
* *
* −.
0 9
.0 5
.2 1
*
5 .
S a d
n e ss
sc a le
2 .7
3 (1
.5 2
) −.
1 2
.2 9
* *
.0 3
.0 2
.2 4
*
6 .
P o
si ti
v e
m o
o d
3 .4
2 (1
.3 3
) .1
7 .1
8 .3
0 *
* .2
7 *
*
7 .
N e g a ti
v e
m o o d
1 .7
4 (0
.9 6
) −.
1 1
−. 0
7 −.
0 1
8 .
A d
v a n
ta g
e d
e ffi
c a c y
4 .6
4 (1
.2 7
) .5
5 *
* *
.4 1
* *
*
9 .
D is
a d
v a n
ta g
e d
e ffi
c a c y
4 .5
1 (1
.2 3
) .2
4 *
1 0
. S
o c ia
l c h
a n
g e
4 .4
1 (1
.1 2
)
N o
te .
* p
< .0
5 ,
* *
p <
.0 1
, *
* *
p <
.0 0
1 .
Greenaway et al.1098 Greenaway et al.
social change, β = .45, p < .001, although sadness, β = .33, p = .035, and positive mood, β = .32, p = .004, were also significant positive predictors. The happiness scale was a significant negative predictor of social change, β = −.38, p = .002. Anger, fear, and negative mood were nonsignificant, βs < −.14, ps > .146. Together, the two perceived efficacy scales predicted support for social change in Step 2, R2Δ = .05, FΔ(2,90) = 3.13, p = .048. Perceived advantaged group efficacy was the only significant predictor of support for social change, β = .28, p = .017. The effect of perceived disad- vantaged group efficacy was nonsignificant, β = −.08, p = .474.
Indirect Effects
Indirect effects of the hope scale on support for social change through perceived advantaged and
disadvantaged group efficacy were tested with 10,000 bootstrapped resamples. The indirect effect of
hope on support for social change through advantaged group efficacy was significant (controlling for
other emotions, mood, and disadvantaged efficacy; IE = .09, SE = .05, bias-corrected 95% CI: .013, .223; see Figure 1). The indirect effect remains significant without including the covariates. The
indirect effect through disadvantaged group efficacy was nonsignificant (controlling for other emo-
tions and advantaged efficacy; IE = −.02, SE = .03, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.084, .031). The effect of the alternative model of advantaged group efficacy increasing social change through hope was also
nonsignificant (IE = .03, SE = .03, CI: −.005 to .116).
Discussion
Study 3 replicated the effects of Studies 1 and 2 using a hope measure with multiple items and
a specific intergroup referent. Hope was strongly positively associated with support for social change
via perceived advantaged group efficacy while perceived disadvantaged group efficacy was not
significantly associated with support for social change. These findings speak against the possibility
that the relationship between hope and support for social change was driven by positive mood: Hope
predicted support for social change over and above general positive affect. In addition, happiness—
another positive emotion—was found to be a significant negative predictor of support for social
change after accounting for the variance shared with the other emotions. If people feel contented with
the current relationship between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, they might be unwilling to
act to change the nature of that relationship. It is not the case, then, that all positive emotions can be
relied upon to increase support for social change.
Study 4
Three studies have demonstrated that hope is associated with support for social change.
Although these correlational results provide support for our hypothesis, they do not allow for causal
inference. Therefore, Study 4 manipulated feelings of hope. We compared a hope induction to a
happiness induction and a control condition. We aimed to test experimentally whether experiencing
hope, rather than happiness, leads individuals to support social change.
We also measured hope and other emotions experienced about the intergroup relationship to
replicate the correlational findings of the previous studies. We anticipated that over and above
these associations, the hope manipulation would increase perceived efficacy and support for social
change. This method allowed us to directly compare different types of hope to test whether hope
must be experienced in a specific intergroup context in order to be associated with support for
social change. If hope in general elicits readiness to take action, then this emotion should be
associated with support for social change even when hope is experienced independent of the
Hope and Social Change 11Hope and Social Change 99
intergroup context. We hypothesized that both specific feelings of hope (related to intergroup
relations) and general feelings of hope (unrelated to intergroup relations) would motivate support
for social change.
Method
Participants and Design
Sixty non-Native Americans completed the study (25 female; Mage = 34.66, SD = 12.20). Par- ticipants were recruited from Mechanical Turk. Two participants were excluded because they failed
attention checks, resulting in a final sample of 58.
Materials and Measures
Manipulated emotion. Participants in the hope condition wrote about a feature of their lives that
made them feel hopeful. Participants in the happy condition wrote about a feature of their lives that
made them feel happy. We checked that participants in both conditions did not write about social
change and, thus, confound interpretation of the results. Most participants in the hope condition
wrote about family or work (n = 12), and positive experiences (e.g., travel, n = 4). Most participants in the happy condition wrote about family (n = 16) and positive experiences (e.g., hot showers, n = 4). Participants in the control condition merely answered the dependent variables. We coded the hope condition as 1, the control condition as 0, and the happy condition as −1.
Measured emotion. Emotions about the intergroup relationship were measured using five items:
“When you think about relations between Native and non-Native Americans, to what extent do you
feel: Hopeful/happy/fearful/angry/sad?” Responses were scored on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 7
(Very Much). The dependent and mediating variables were measured as in Study 2 (αs > .90). Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables are presented in Table 5.
Results
Because we manipulated and measured hope, we can perform dual tests of our hypothesis that
hope increases support for social change.3 We performed a series of multiple regressions, predicting,
first, perceived advantaged and disadvantaged group efficacy and second, support for social change
from general (manipulated) hope, specific (measured) hope, and the other measured emotions.4 For
the analyses involving social change, manipulated and measured emotions were entered at the first
step followed by the two perceived efficacy measures at the second step. Results of the regression
analyses are presented in Table 6.
3 The general hope manipulation actually served to lower specific hope (M = 3.50, SD = 1.51) compared to the happy condition (M = 4.59, SD = 1.50, p = .035) but not compared to the control condition (M = 4.40, SD = 1.60, p = .087), F(2,55) = 2.53, p = .089, ηp2 = .084. This makes it necessary to control for measured hope when investigating the effects of manipulated hope and vice versa.
4 In addition to the regression analyses, ANCOVAs were conducted to test the differences between experimental conditions
on the outcome variables. There was a significant effect of the manipulation on perceived advantaged group efficacy,
F(2,50) = 3.31, p = .045, ηp2 = .117. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the hopeful participants perceived the advantaged group to be more efficacious than happy participants, p = .014, and more efficacious, although not significantly so, than control participants, p = .089. There was a significant effect of the manipulation on perceived disadvantaged group efficacy, F(2,50) = 3.90, p = .027, ηp2 = .135. Hopeful participants perceived the disadvantaged group to be more efficacious than happy participants, p = .008, but not more efficacious than control participants, p = .210. There was a significant effect of the manipulation on support for social change, F(2,50) = 3.59, p = .035, ηp2 = .126. Hopeful participants reported significantly more support than happy participants, p = .011, and more support than control partici- pants, p = .060, albeit nonsignificantly.
Greenaway et al.12100 Greenaway et al.
T a
b le
5 .
M e a n
s, S
ta n
d a rd
D e v
ia ti
o n
s (i
n p
a re
n th
e se
s) ,
a n
d C
o rr
e la
ti o
n s
A m
o n
g F
o c a l
V a ri
a b
le s
in S
tu d
y 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
0
1 .
H o
p e
v s.
o th
e r
c o
n d
it io
n s
(m a n
ip u
la te
d )
−0 .1
7 (1
.3 5
) −.
4 8
* *
* −.
2 9
* −.
0 6
.0 1
−. 1
5 −.
1 2
.1 3
.1 8
.1 1
2 .
H a p
p y
v s.
o th
e r
c o
n d
it io
n s
(m a n
ip u
la te
d )
0 .1
4 (1
.4 7
) .1
8 .0
8 .0
4 −.
1 3
−. 1
4 .1
9 −.
2 4
−. 2
2
3 .
H o
p e
(m e a su
re d
) 4
.2 2
(1 .5
8 )
.5 5
* *
* .0
1 −.
0 6
−. 1
2 .3
0 *
.3 4
* .2
1
4 .
H a p
p in
e ss
(m e a su
re d
) 2
.6 4
(1 .5
6 )
.1 8
−. 0
7 −.
2 2
−. 0
5 .2
6 *
−. 1 1
5 .
F e a r
(m e a su
re d
) 1
.9 8
(1 .2
2 )
.5 2
* *
* .4
1 *
* −.
1 0
−. 0
4 .0
8
6 .
A n
g e r
(m e a su
re d
) 2
.5 0
(1 .6
1 )
.7 5
* *
* .1
2 −.
0 8
.3 6
* *
7 .
S a d
n e ss
(m e a su
re d
) 3
.4 1
(1 .8
9 )
.1 3
.0 5
.4 5
* *
*
8 .
A d
v a n
ta g
e d
e ffi
c a c y
4 .6
8 (1
.6 7
) .3
4 *
* .6
6 *
* *
9 .
D is
a d
v a n
ta g
e d
e ffi
c a c y
4 .2
4 (1
.2 2
) .2
9 *
1 0
. S
o c ia
l c h
a n
g e
4 .4
3 (1
.1 2
)
N o
te .
C o
n tr
a st
1 c o
d e d
a s
h o
p e
= 2
, c o
n tr
o l
= −1
, h
a p
p y
= −1
; C
o n
tr a st
2 c o
d e d
a s
h o
p e
= −1
, c o
n tr
o l
= −1
, h
a p
p y
= 2
. *
p <
.0 5
, *
* p
< .0
1 ,
* *
* p
< .0
0 1
.
Hope and Social Change 13Hope and Social Change 101
Efficacy
Together the emotion manipulation and measures predicted advantaged efficacy, R2 = .28, FΔ(6,51) = 3.26, p = .009. The general hope manipulation independently predicted advantaged effi- cacy beliefs such that the hope condition predicted greater perceived advantaged group efficacy,
β = .31, p = .015. Specific hope for intergroup relations also significantly predicted greater perceived advantaged group efficacy, β = .55, p = .001. No other variable was significant, βs < −.16, ps > .276.
Together, the emotion manipulation and measures predicted disadvantaged efficacy, R2 = .29, FΔ(6,51) = 3.44, p = .006. The general hope manipulation independently predicted advantaged effi- cacy beliefs such that the hope condition predicted greater perceived disadvantaged group efficacy,
β = .35, p = .007. Specific hope also predicted greater perceived disadvantaged group efficacy, β = .37, p = .015. No other variable was significant, βs < −.27, ps > .162.
Social change. Together the emotion manipulation and measures predicted social change,
R2 = .39, FΔ(6,51) = 5.51, p < .001. There was a significant effect of general hope on support for social change such that the hope condition predicted greater support for social change, β = .29, p = .014. Likewise, specific hope was a significant predictor of greater support for social change in Step 1, β = .47, p = .001. Sadness also significantly predicted support for social change, β = .41, p = .020. No other variable was significant, βs < −.23, ps > .113.
The efficacy variables together predicted support for social change in Step 2, R2Δ = .05, FΔ(2,90) = 3.13, p = .048, although advantaged group efficacy was the only significant independent predictor, β = .52, p < .001. Disadvantaged group efficacy was unrelated to support for social change, β = .03, p = .796. The relationship between general hope and support for social change became nonsignificant in Step 2, β = .12, p = .267, as did the relationship between specific hope and support for social change, β = .17, p = .203.
General Hope Indirect Effects
There was a significant indirect effect of the hope manipulation on support for social change
through perceived advantaged group efficacy (controlling for disadvantaged efficacy and measured
emotions; IE = 0.22, SE = .11, bias-corrected 95% CI: .048, .494). The indirect effect remains significant without including the covariates. The effect through disadvantaged group efficacy was
nonsignificant (controlling for advantaged efficacy and measured emotions; IE = 0.01, SE = .07, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.105, .164).
Table 6. Regression Results in Study 4
Disadvantaged Group
Efficacy
Advantaged Group
Efficacy
Support for
Social Change
Step 1
Manipulated hope .35** .31* .29*
Measured hope .37* .55*** .47***
Measured happiness .15 −.27 −.23 Measured anger −.27 .15 .11 Measured sadness .35 .08 .41
Measured fear −.06 −.16 −.10 Step 2
Advantaged group efficacy – – .52***
Disadvantaged group efficacy – – .03
Note. Contrast 1 coded as hope = 2, control = −1, happy = −1; Contrast 2 coded as hope = −1, control = −1, happy = 2. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Greenaway et al.14102 Greenaway et al.
Specific Hope Indirect Effects
Bootstrapping analyses with 10,000 resamples confirmed there was a significant indirect effect
of specific (measured) hope on support for social change through perceived advantaged group
efficacy (controlling for disadvantaged efficacy, other measured emotions, and general hope;
IE = 0.20, SE = .08, bias-corrected 95% CI: .082, .390). The indirect effect remains significant without including the covariates. There was no significant effect through perceived disadvantaged
group efficacy (controlling for advantaged efficacy, other measured emotion, and general hope;
IE = 0.01, SE = .04, bias-corrected 95% CI: −.057, .091). The effect of the alternative model of advantaged group efficacy increasing social change through hope was also nonsignificant (IE = .01, SE = .04, CI: −.062, .103).
Discussion
As predicted, hope increased support for social change both when experienced in relation to and
separate from the intergroup context. This indicates that inspiring hope among advantaged group
members, even when unrelated to intergroup relations, can have positive consequences for willing-
ness to equalize status relations. General feelings of hope were sufficient to increase an advantaged
group’s willingness to engage in social change and their perceived efficacy to do so. This relationship
occurred over and above the effects of other emotions on support for social change.
General Discussion
Our findings show that in addition to promoting reconciliation (Cohen-Chen et al., 2013;
Halperin & Gross, 2011), hope also promotes willingness to equalize unequal status relations. This
relationship was observed in two countries with different intergroup contexts (Study 1) and occurred
over and above the effect of other emotions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, hope increased support for
social change when measured and manipulated and when related and unrelated to the intergroup
context. In all four studies, the effect of hope was mediated by the perception that advantaged group
members were efficacious and capable of achieving social change. Although hope also predicted
perceived disadvantaged group efficacy, it was advantaged group efficacy that was reliably associ-
ated with support for social change.
Theoretical Implications
The present work has implications for research on emotions in intergroup contexts as well as
collective action more broadly. In this research, we demonstrate that hope predicts efficacy and
collective action tendencies among advantaged group members. We do not mean to imply that hope
is the only positive emotion to predict efficacy or support for social change. In fact, we found other
positive emotions to be collective action predictors as well. For example, in Study 3, positive mood
also independently predicted support for social change. Relatively few studies have considered the
role of positive emotions in promoting social change (e.g., Thomas et al., 2009). Our findings
underline the importance of hope as one positive emotion with the power to increase support for
social change.
By showing hope effects on efficacy and social action, we contribute theoretical insight into the
action tendencies of hope. These have been traditionally fuzzy (Lazarus, 1999), but researchers tend
to agree that hope should promote agency and planning that inspires people to achieve their goals
(Averill et al., 1990; Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2002; Snyder, 2002; Snyder et al., 1991). We provided
concrete evidence of these action tendencies in the form of enhanced efficacy beliefs and greater
Hope and Social Change 15Hope and Social Change 103
willingness to act for social change when hope is experienced. In this, we investigated hope as an
independent driver of social action with its own mediating mechanisms. Previous work in this area
has been correlational, measuring hope and its associations with intergroup attitudes. Our research
represents the first work we know of to experimentally manipulate hope and assess its effects in an
intergroup context.
The effects of the manipulation in Study 4 demonstrated that hope need not be related to the
intergroup context in order to promote support for social change. While feelings of hope about a
specific intergroup relationship should promote action relevant to that particular intergroup context,
it is noteworthy that hope has these effects even when induced independent of the intergroup context.
An interesting question and direction for future research is whether hope fosters development of
shared identity between advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Shared emotion facilitates self-
categorization processes that lead to common in-group identity (Livingstone et al., 2011). This may
be part of the process by which hope increases support for social change. Substantial research has
demonstrated that shared social identity inspires collective action on behalf of those less fortunate
(Tausch & Becker, 2013; Thomas et al., 2012). Although we did not measure the degree to which
advantaged group members believe that disadvantaged groups share their hope for the future, it is
possible such a perception would magnify the effects observed here.
Limitations
It is important to be cautious in interpreting the mediation analyses that locate efficacy as a
mediator in this work. Appraisals of efficacy could also influence feelings of hope and for this reason
increase support for social change (Cohen-Chen et al., 2013). Without experimental data, we cannot
provide definitive evidence for a causal mediating chain (Bullock, Green, & Ha, 2010). Yet, consid-
erable research indicates that efficacy is a key driver of collective action (Tausch & Becker, 2013;
Thomas et al., 2012; Van Zomeren et al., 2008), which encourages us that this is an appropriate
ordering of the variables.
There was some variability in the pattern of associations between emotions and support for
social change across the studies. Happiness is particularly curious—it correlated positively with
support for social change in Study 2 but negatively in Study 3. Happiness also reduced support for
social change when experimentally induced in Study 4. Previous research too has demonstrated that
happiness is not an effective emotion for motivating collective action (Livingstone et al., 2011). It is
also consistent with the broader literature on emotion and motivation where low-intensity positive
emotions, such as feeling content, are associated with reduced motivation in general (Gable &
Harmon-Jones, 2011). Indeed, it makes sense that if people feel satisfied with existing intergroup
relations, they might see little reason to seek out opportunities to change them.
Considering that anger is typically a strong predictor of collective action, it might also seem
surprising that it did not independently predict support for social change. With advantaged groups,
anger has sometimes been associated with resistance to social change and may not be relevant to the
type of support for social change that we assessed. Anger may be more important for inspiring
specific actions to address social injustice, particularly among those suffering from it.
Given that sadness is typically considered to be a deactivating emotion, it was somewhat
surprising that it was a positive predictor of support for social change (Study 3). Yet, previous
research has found sadness to be positively associated with willingness to protest unequal status
relations (Smith et al., 2008). Although we did not measure guilt directly, feelings of sadness in this
intergroup context may reflect guilt, which is associated with desire to change the circumstances that
elicited that emotion.
Despite variation in the zero-order relationships involving different emotions, we found repeat-
edly that hope significantly positively predicted support for social change, even when controlling for
Greenaway et al.16104 Greenaway et al.
shared variance with other emotions. The consistency of this finding across different contexts and
different measures of hope speaks to the robustness of the effect.
Political Implications
We have shown that hope motivates people to social action. However, employing hope to effect
change by politicians may warrant caution. Looking to the long term, if these change efforts are
thwarted, people could become discouraged from further change efforts. There is some evidence for
such an effect after President Obama’s first election to office. Non-African Americans showed a
significant drop in support and willingness to work towards social justice after his election compared
to before (Kaiser, Drury, Spalding, Cheryan, & O’Brien, 2009). This phenomenon of “dashed hopes”
could do more to damage a social cause than if hopes had not been raised in the first place. Hope
appeals therefore must be coupled with concrete action and visible gains to maintain willingness to
achieve social change in the long term.
People may also resist attempts to induce hope if they appear heavy-handed or manipulative.
Although we successfully manipulated hope in Study 4 and showed that this significantly increased
support for social change, it should be noted that hope was induced in a personal domain and showed
spill-over to the intergroup domain. There is no guarantee that explicit attempts to increase hope
about social relations will be accepted in a similar manner. A long literature in the social identity
tradition warns of the resistance people can show when exposed to information that they believe
undermines their positive group identity or is perceived as a threat to in-group advantage (e.g.,
Branscombe, Schmitt, & Schiffhauer, 2007). Further research is needed to determine the ideal
methods of inducing hope before the political applications of this research can be fully understood
and put into practice.
To be maximally effective, messages of hope must come from in-group members if they are to
be acted upon. Emotional appeals are typically more effective when presented by someone who
belongs to the same group (e.g., Reicher, Cassidy, Wolpert, Hopkins, & Levine, 2006). This may
explain Obama’s success in 2008. In presenting a message of hope, he did so for all Americans—
uniting different groups under a banner of hope for change. Hope in the context of a shared identity
may hold the key to bringing advantaged and disadvantaged groups together in a spirit of striving for
social equality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ideas for this project were developed at the 2010 EASP Summer School. The authors would
like to thank Katherine Reynolds and Machos Iatridis for their input at preliminary stages of the
research. Preparation of this article was facilitated by awards to the lead and final authors from the
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research: Social Interactions, Identity, and Well-being Program.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katharine Greenaway, School of
Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. E-mail: k.greenaway@
psy.uq.edu.au
REFERENCES
Averill, J. R., Catlin, G., & Chon, K. K. (1990). Rules of hope. New York, NY: Springer.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions: Conceptualization and behavioural effects.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 685–696.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Schiffhauer, K. (2007). Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of White privilege.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 203–215.
Hope and Social Change 17
Psychologist,
Hope and Social Change 105
Branzei, O. (2012). Social change agency under adversity: How relational processes (re)produce hope in hopeless settings. In
K. Golden-Biddle & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Using a positive lens to explore social change and organization and
management (pp. 21–47). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558.
Chartrand, T. L., & Cheng, C. M. (2002). The role of nonconscious goal pursuit in hope. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 290–294.
Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Crisp, R. J., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Hope in the Middle East: Malleability beliefs, hope, and the
willingness to compromise for peace. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550613484499
Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Saguy, T., & Van Zomeren, M. (2014). Beliefs about the malleability of immoral groups
facilitate collective action. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 203–210. doi:10.1177/1948550613491292.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011). Attentional consequences of pregoal and postgoal positive affects. Emotion, 11,
1358–1367.
Halperin, E., Bar-Tal, D., Nets-Zehngut, R., & Almog, E. (2008). Fear and hope in conflict: Some determinants in the
Israeli-Jewish society. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 14, 1–26.
Halperin, E., Crisp, R., Husnu, S., Dweck, C., & Gross, J. (2012). Promoting intergroup contact by changing Beliefs: Group
malleability, intergroup anxiety and contact motivation. Emotion, 12, 1192–1195.
Halperin, E., & Gross, J. (2011). Emotion regulation in violent conflict: Reappraisal, hope, and support for humanitarian aid
to the opponent in wartime. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 1228–1236.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious
and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881– 919.
Kaiser, C. R., Drury, B. J., Spalding, K. E., Cheryan, S., & O’Brien, L. T. (2009). The ironic consequences of Obama’s
election: Decreased support for social justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 556–559.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social Research, 66, 653–678.
Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2007). Angry opposition to government redress: When the structurally advantaged
perceive themselves as relatively deprived. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 191–204.
Livingstone, A. G., Spears, R., Manstead, A. S. R., Bruder, M., & Shepherd, L. (2011). We feel, therefore we are: Emotion
as a basis for self-categorization and social action. Emotion, 11, 754–767.
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup
context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616.
Moeschberger, S. L., Dixon, D. N., Niens, U., & Cairns, E. (2005). Forgiveness in Northern Ireland: A model for peace in the
midst of the “Troubles.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11, 199–214.
Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American Dream. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2002). Turning hope thoughts into goal-directed behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13,
304–307.
Reicher, S., Cassidy, C., Wolpert, I., Hopkins, N., & Levine, M. (2006). Saving Bulgaria’s Jews: An analysis of social identity
and the mobilisation of social solidarity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–72.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, H. J., Cronin, T., & Kessler, T. (2008). Anger, fear, or sadness: Faculty members’ emotional reactions to collective pay
disadvantage. Political Psychology, 29, 221–246.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275.
Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1991). Hope and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In C. R. Snyder & D.
R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 285–305). Elmsford, NY:
Pergamon.
Staats, S. R., & Stassen, M. A. (1985). Hope: An affective cognition. Social Indicators Research, 17, 235–242.
Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Denney, H. T. (2010). Yes we can! Prejudice reduction through seeing
(inequality) and believing (in social change). Psychological Science, 21, 1557–1562.
Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Branscombe, N. R., Phillips, N. L., & Denney, H. T. (2012). White privilege awareness and efficacy
to reduce racial inequality improve White Americans’ attitudes toward African Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 68,
11–27.
Subašić, E., & Reynolds, K. J. (2009). Beyond “practical” reconciliation: Intergroup inequality and the meaning of non-
indigenous identity. Political Psychology, 30, 243–267.
Greenaway et al.18
(Don’t
106 Greenaway et al.
Tausch, N., & Becker, J. C. (2013). Emotional reactions to success and failure of collective action as predictors of future action
intentions: A longitudinal investigation in the context of student protests in Germany. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 52, 525–542.
Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I., & McGarty, C. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A
test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15, 75–88.
Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Transforming “apathy into movement”: The role of prosocial emotions
in motivating action for social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 310–333.
Van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their
paradoxical relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1055–1060.
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A
quantitative research synthesis of three socio-political perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.
Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining
collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 87(5), 649–664.
Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2002). What makes hope hopeful? The relationship between hope and self-regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 318–321.
Washington, J. M. (1991). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. San Francisco,
CA: HarperCollins.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one’s group has done wrong
or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 1–37.
Hope and Social Change 19Hope and Social Change 107
Copyright of Political Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.