Year: 2025
Type: editorial
Abstract: Since the inception of the field of positive psychology, with its interest in understanding factors that make people thrive, hope has featured prominently. Hope is essentially about thoughts, emotions and behaviours related to the future. How individuals view the future, will also influence how they act in the present (Pleeging et al., 2022). Hope thus offers a mechanism for navigating adversity and envisioning possibility, making it an important construct in furthering knowledge and developing interventions to promote wellbeing. However, as the field of positive psychology matures into its third wave and beyond (Lomas et al., 2021;Wissing, 2022) there are calls to revisit our understanding of key wellbeing concepts. More specifically, Van Zyl and Dik (2025) proposed a paradigm shift in examining positive psychology constructs and processes, arguing for a move towards person-centred, ideographic, bottom-up approaches that are more inclusive and context-sensitive. It may be an opportune time to consider hope research against this backdrop. Snyder 's (2000;2002) cognitive-motivational hope theory made a seminal contribution to understanding individual thought processes that sustain motivation in reaching goals. It remains one of the most influential psychological theories on hope (Gallagher, 2023). While there were early calls for alternative conceptualizations of hope (e.g. Averill & Sundarajan, 2005;Webb, 2007), and frameworks outside of psychology were developed (e.g. Herth, 1991;1992), more nuanced models on the nature and measurement of hope only started to emerge over the past decade (e.g. Krafft et al., 2019;2023;Scioli et al., 2016).There is also increased interest in broader, transdisciplinary understandings of hope (e.g., Colla et al., 2022;Krafft, Guse et al., 2023;Pleeging et al., 2022). Further, there have been proposals to examine hope beyond individualistic, Western contexts (Bernardo, 2010;Bernardo & Ramos, 2024;Krafft, Guse et al., 2023;Thomas et al., 2023) and to broaden our understanding of the sources of hope.This volume of The Psychology of Hope emanated from our interest in further unravelling how hope can be understood in different contexts and through different conceptualizations. Our aim was to expand theoretical knowledge of hope, traversing from existing individualistic, cognitive-motivational perspectives to broader systems, cultural contexts, communities, and the environment. Moreover, we aimed to elicit knowledge on strategies to strengthen and sustain hope in different contexts in a manner that challenges traditional individual assumptions and advocates for integrating social, environmental, and communal dimensions. In this editorial, we draw upon the contributions to the volume to propose avenues toward expanding hope research. We also consider recent frameworks of hope as a group-based emotion (Cohen-Chen & Pliskin, 2025), cross-cultural findings on hope (Krafft, Guse et al., 2023) as well as Van Zyl and Dik's (2025) proposed personcentred, ideographic approach in considering future research. We argue that there is a need to revisit the foci (threads) and methods (looms) in weaving the tapestry of understanding hope. While examining hope on an individual level remains important, exploring the experience and expression of hope in relational, group and collective contexts require attention. We also highlight methodological and theoretical considerations for future research. Finally, we propose a transdisciplinary umbrella of hope studies, to allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how beliefs and feelings about the future support wellbeing for all. As we consider future hope research, two questions guide this editorial: Who and what should we examine when we study hope? How can our methods more comprehensively capture the complexity of hope? Whilst not exhaustive, we attempt to provide some answers.Living hope: Individual experiences of hope and hopingThe past two decades of hope research has generated substantial insights on individual levels of hope as well as correlations between hope and important psychological outcomes.For example, higher levels of hope in adolescence are associated with higher levels of psychological well-being in adulthood (Long et al., 2024) and serve as a protective factor on times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Krafft, Chukwuorji et al., 2023). However, these findings mostly emanated from existing top-down approaches to studying hope, relying on survey research, averages and universal models of hope (see van Zyl & Dik, 2025). While some scholars have explored experiences of hope (e.g. de Pretto et al., 2020;Møller et al., 2024) and lay definitions of hope (Feldman et al., 2023) there is a need for more in-depth, ideographic studies on the subjective experience of hope, the process of hoping and the meaning of hope. For example, when do individuals experience hope and how would they describe it? What does the process of hope entail? Moreover, what enables people to hope, and what dampens hope? This might encompass looking more closely at collectivist and indigenous communities and exploring how communal and spiritual dimensions of hope manifests in these contexts (see Thomas et al., 2023). There is ample opportunity to explore the rich, lived experiences of individuals in weaving the tapestry of hope.Hope is not only an individualised experience but also materialises in relational contexts. It is important to consider the interconnectedness of the individual, family, community, and environment in maintaining a hopeful outlook towards the future (Bryce & Fraser, 2023;Møller & Roberts, 2024;Wissing, 2014). Colla et al. (2022) argued that we need to move beyond the limitations of the individualistic and reductionistic investigation of hope by situating it as a systemic phenomenon that acknowledges its contextual networks, complexity, and possibly emergent nature. Similarly, Pleeging et al. (2022) argued that social connections and institutional, political, cultural and economic contexts could influence hope.However, how people understand and experience hope, particularly in relation to interpersonal connections and broad contexts, still needs to be further examined. Expanding on Van Zyl and Dik's (2025) proposed ideographic approach, researchers could explore hope in relational terms, taking into consideration the lived experiences of individuals in different relational contexts.Such research could focus on three levels: First, we could examine how relational and group contexts influence individual levels of hope, hope processes and hope outcomes. For example, Bernardo (2010;2015) postulated that external agents such as social groups and spiritual dimensions may influence the way individuals think about goals and pathways to goals. While Bernardo and Ramos (2024, this volume) advocate for integrating cultural dimensions into cognitive theories of hope, these processes still need to be further investigated. To explore these relational dimensions would require measurement tools that accurately capture the multi-layered complexity of assessing how different agents contribute to a specific individual's experience of hope. Not only do we need to capture the role of these different agents, but we might need to interrogate how each of them differentially contributes to or possibly even diminish hope.Second, it is important to examine how hope is expressed and experienced in group settings. Research on hope from a social-psychological perspective showed that hope can function as a group-based emotion in the context of intra-and intergroup relations.Specifically, hope can lead to the attainment of both positive and negative outcomes (Cohen-Chen & Pliskin, 2025). For example, the authors found that hope is functional for promoting positive intergroup attitudes but may be less optimal for inspiring collective action to oppose social inequality. In this volume, Leshem and Halperin (2024) provide a framework for understanding the emotional drivers, deep-seated wishes or hopes that may sustain groups and activists who are engaged in long-term social or political conflicts. This line of research mostly emanated from contexts of intractable conflicts. Therefore, more studies are needed to understand group-based hope in other cultures and contexts such as marginalised groups and non-Western contexts. Another imminent research gap is to explore what hope looks like among people faced with systemic disadvantages and oppression, as well as disabled or incarcerated individuals. It is necessary to understand how group-based hope would manifest in the face of adversities that are embedded in the way the society is organised. For example, can hope support and foster actions targeted at navigating structural barriers?Finally, the notion of collective hope (Krafft, 2025;Krafft, Guse et al., 2023) incorporates broader social domains and culturally shared worldviews and their relationship to hope. In this volume, Krafft (2025) argues that hope encompasses more than individualistic goal-oriented dimensions and incorporates broader social domains and culturally shared worldviews. He supports his view by presenting findings on hope and worldviews among Italian and French-speaking samples in Switzerland. However, we still need to understand what collective hope entails from individuals' and groups' perspectives, and how it is expressed and sustained. In sum, how hope materialises in groups and communities, and how hope can be mobilised in various contexts and through various relationships, needs to be further explored. Like research has progressed in measuring societal happiness, similar approaches could be implemented to measuring and promoting hope.While most studies on hope have focused on its cognitive dimensions, several authors proposed that hope is primarily an emotion (e.g. Averill et al., 1990;Bruininks & Malle, 2005) or that hope has an emotional component that could influence goal-directed behaviour (Feldman & Jazaieri , 2024). Yet, there is still a gap in research that explains the mechanisms and dynamics of hope as an emotion. Fredrickson (1998;2013) identified hope as one of ten most experienced positive emotions and proposed that hope contributes to building psychological resources through encouraging individuals to aspire to a better future.However, empirical studies on hope in the context of broaden and build theory (Fredrickson, 1998) are still limited. For example, can hope be induced in the moment through specific activities, and what are the behavioural outcomes? How, and when does hope broaden actionthought repertoires? Would it be possible to explore this from a neuroscience perspective, given existing neurological evidence showing that specific parts of the brain are activated when positive emotions are being experienced (Alexander et al., 2021)? More recently, Edwards et al. (2024;2025) initiated research on inducing hopeful feelings and its associated outcomes, but more research is required regarding the cultural applicability of inducing hope in different contexts. This is quite important as Appiah (2022) highlighted the unintended harm that well-being interventions could have when they are not properly tailored for a specific context.Cohen-Chen and Pliskin (2025) proposed a nuanced perspective of hope as an emotion, specifically in group-based contexts. The authors examined hope through a valence and function framework suggesting that hope can be categorised based on two orthogonal dimensions: the pleasantness of the emotional experience (valence) and the social outcomes (function). This framework goes beyond existing assumptions that hope is positive and highlights how group-based hope may lead to negative outcomes and emotions. In the individual domain, less is known about the valence and function of hope. If we consider that hope is also an ambivalent emotion (Lomas, 2017), and can co-occur with negative affect (Gasper et al., 2020), more research is required regarding the experiences and outcomes of hope as an emotion. This must also be adequately captured in measurement approaches.While we have learned much about the individual mechanisms and correlates of hope, it can be fruitful to examine how hope is created in language and conversations. Some scholars proposed that hope is a socially constructed phenomenon (e.g. Ahlik et al., 2023).What can we learn about the phenomenon of hope through analysing messages of hope and discourses of hope? How does this link to collective hope and action towards a better future?How is hope constructed in social situations? For example, messages that evoke hopeful future attitudes seem to promote pro-environmental behaviour (Schneider at al., 2021). Hope discourse therefore has social implications (Ahlik et al., 2023), and there is a need to examine more closely how hope is created or constructed in naturally occurring conversations.Further, it is important to explore the outcomes of hope discourses in the context of sociopolitical issues such as climate change and geo-political conflict.Hope is anchored in beliefs and feelings about a desired future. However, these beliefs and affective experiences may be shaped by culture and context. It is therefore important to place context as a key element in examining hope. Recent survey research demonstrated differences in levels of hope among participants from different cultures and contexts (e.g. Krafft, Guse et al., 2023;Slezackova et al., 2021). Qualitative enquiry among South African adults living in adversity indicated that context is paramount when studying hope beyond value-neutral, self-focused Western contexts. Specifically, in contexts where external societal support is lacking and inequality persists, individuals anchor their hope in relational and transcendent sources (Thomas et al., 2023). In this volume, Mason (2024) demonstrates how hope is interwoven with social responsibilities and collective aspirations in a collectivist context. Similarly, Bernardo and Ramos (2024) point out that empirical research on hope often yielded divergent findings in diverse cultural contexts, particularly regarding the two-factor structure of hope. The authors expand on Bernardo's (2010) earlier work on "locus-of-hope", differentiating between internal (disjoint) and external (conjoint) sources of hope, which are crucial in collectivist cultures where spiritual beliefs, religious practices, and family-relational processes are significant sources of hope. These dimensions could be fruitfully explored by engaging with individuals, groups and communities.The importance of context is also seen in the nature of goals and hopeful thinking patterns that individuals develop. Khumalo et al. (2022) argued that prioritisation of tertiary education and employment among South African university students was shaped by the need to secure a better material future and support their families, capturing the kinds of obstacles these young people needed to navigate. Also in this volume, Chan et al. ( 2024) provides evidence that hope, viewed as a cognitive-motivational construct, served as a protective factor for sleep quality among university students in Hong Kong, while the culturally relevant construct of negotiable fate did not relate to sleep. This highlights the complex interplay between context and specific conceptualizations of hope. While research on hope in context has emerged substantially over the past few years, it is evident that more research is needed to explicitly consider how context influences hope, as hope may be situated in the particular place people find themselves to be at a particular time (Counted & Newheiser, 2024) as well as the broader societal context (Krafft, Guse et al., 2023;Thomas et al., 2023).A large body of research has reported on the positive outcomes associated with hope, including higher levels of subjective well-being (e.g. Pleeging et al., 2021), positive health outcomes and health behaviours (e.g. Abeyta, 2023;Scioli et al., 2016) and lower levels of distress (e.g. Slezackova et al., 2023). An explanation for the social, psychological and biological mechanisms underlying these outcomes need to be explicated in broader contexts.Further, hope has substantive outcomes et al., 2023;Thomas et al., 2023). However, less is known about the negative outcomes of hope. and Pliskin (2025) how hope as a group-based emotion can lead to social outcomes and individual experiences More specifically, they argued that hope could act as a to and of systemic or to psychological distress when induced in contexts of research could explore negative outcomes associated with different conceptualizations of hope in various contexts and among various individuals, groups and the of hope theories and it is important to examine the and of strategies and on cognitive conceptualizations of hope, findings that hope is et al., 2025). to hope have been implemented in several contexts, including health (e.g. & 2023), (e.g. & 2022) and education (e.g. & 2024). In this volume, and ( present an for the needs for and showed significant in hope, and social with a in Further, the study demonstrates that hope interventions may be even when by It is also important to consider specific conceptualizations of hope in and hope Also in this volume, et al. ( 2024) how hope, and provide empirical evidence for developing targeted support strategies that aim to and psychological The findings highlight hope as the most significant factor in promoting the focus of hope interventions has mostly been on individual hope and outcomes. More research is required on of and hope in groups and It is also important to understand and sources of hope in interventions to foster and sustain hope in different contexts. In this volume, and (2024) propose the of hope as a that contributes to understanding hope in the context of such as climate further present for promoting hope in education for Also in this volume, Slezackova et al. (2024) on the crucial role of hope in the Specifically, hope to act as a in negative experiences into Therefore, hope has as a for psychological interventions to promote and well-being in the face of the nature and outcomes of such interventions still need to be research needs to explore there may be where hope interventions may be Hope the for an that may not be and could be by such as In such interventions to hope could also (Gasper et al., It is therefore important to examine specific contexts and where of while hope could have an Similarly, the applicability of hope interventions in non-Western contexts need to be further as these may not be when the focus is on individualistic conceptualizations of hope research may similar limitations as which to be individualistic and with less given to and understandings of well-being Zyl & Dik, 2025). We that scholars could expand existing approaches to studying hope and move beyond such as levels and correlates of hope, to explore nuanced and of hope. In this volume, Mason (2024) contributes by examining hope among students a collectivist context a Thomas et al. made an important contribution in examining lived experiences of hope among adults living in South African but there is still a need for further studies similar research approaches in other contexts.Further, it may be to an relational in studying hope. a relational perspective & 2023), social contexts, connections and in influence experiences of The may be for experiences of hope. could relational thinking and consider how the of individual and collective perspectives the and connections among individuals their experiences of hope action research and research approaches 2023) could be to understand the complexity of relational in there is for examining hopeful emotions and experiences from a neuroscience Research focused on the correlates of positive including hope, is still to the research on negative emotions (see et al., while studies on hope as cognitive process are only to emerge et al., research could from methodological more diverse an approach could of hope, explore lived experiences and complexity while also on its This will allow for and in examining hope. For example, Thomas et al. implemented research both top-down and bottom-up to explore hope among individuals living in a African studies could also explore the applicability of et al., and of hope in similar contexts. on recent calls to in transdisciplinary research (Krafft, Guse et al., 2023;Pleeging et al., 2022) more focused studies from and psychology, among is needed to capture the complexity to the of we view the need to in research in understanding and promoting hope as crucial to the of the research to knowledge with change towards a et al., 2024). It further societal through developing social and knowledge which could support et al., 2021). to hope research, a would a shift from to For example, research could examine hope as a point and where and how hope could change towards a better future, than its Another possible research approach would be to such as communities, and in This will researchers to understand what of hope is needed and functional in specific or for example, climate change or inequality (see et al., well-being research has beyond traditional and approaches to examine various constructs at For example, the COVID-19 et al. captured affective in ten of The researchers a of social as a of which is This them to well-being dynamics (see et al., 2025), a of was to which feelings and attitudes in the This approach researchers to capture well-being or affective and (2025) proposed an methodological approach to a This emotion from and to their with on a a similar approach, hope research could of and social to explore feelings and about the future. the to cognitive and affective dimensions of hope et al., 2025), ideographic Zyl & Dik, as well as of hope. Further, could research on messages of hope or hope (see Ahlik et al., 2024). and (2025) approach to in time through analysing it is to a hope to into levels of a approach offers tools for hope, by on the collective hope of large It can be to hope in specific contexts and such as health and economic (see also & In we might also consider the role of social in promoting or hope for a pandemic or even the of in to support health contributions in this volume an of complex and interwoven nature. While the authors examine hope through its they also and relational The findings of the studies in this further the complexity associated with understanding positive constructs and their diverse of various and social is not a but a tapestry of relationships, and In perspectives on studying hope, there is also the opportunity for towards a transdisciplinary field of hope studies that complexity of how individuals think and toward better In with the of we need to consider which of hope (e.g. individual, relational, must be more and how we can methodological approaches as the weaving to better capture the nature of hope. In the field could to a more inclusive of diverse experiences of hope and contribute to to support well-being contexts.
Source: Frontiers in Psychology
Language: English
Subfield: Applied Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $3,801
OpenAlex ID: W4417428212