Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement

Abstract

Researchers are increasingly examining whether hope can motivate action on climate change, or conversely, whether it might demotivate such action. We present a meta-analysis (k = 46) of quantitative studies examining the relationships between measures and manipulations of hope with climate engagement. On average, measured hope was associated with greater climate engagement (r = 0.18); however, this effect differed based on the target of hope. Hope regarding the possibility of respondents taking action was particularly strongly associated with greater engagement (r = 0.40), while in contrast, hope grounded in climate change not being a problem was associated with less engagement (r = −0.40). Hope in response to climate change generally, and domain-general hope, were only weakly associated with greater engagement (rs = 0.13, 0.20). On average, hope manipulations fostered increased engagement, though the increase was small (Cohen’s d = 0.08). Subgroup analyses suggested two promising types of hope manipulations warranting future research: personal efficacy (k = 2, d = 0.18) and in-depth (k = 2, d = 0.49). In contrast, messages suggesting societal efficacy (i.e., providing a sense of possibility that climate change could be addressed) did not significantly or substantially boost (nor discourage) engagement (d = 0.05), and status quo-framed messages (i.e., messages highlighting that environmental conditions could stay the same if climate action is taken) had a marginally significant negative effect on engagement (d = −0.18). After excluding a single outlier, the extent to which manipulations increased hope were not correlated with increases in climate engagement, suggesting the possibility that hope might be incidental to the success of some manipulations rather than a necessary component for promoting engagement. Overall, our meta-analysis does not suggest that increasing hope decreases climate engagement, with the possible exceptions of denial hope and status quo framed messages. Conversely, however, results provide partial yet inconclusive evidence for the hypothesis that increasing hope increases climate engagement. Given the existing published literature, we argue that future researchers should consider study designs that align with theoretical perspectives on how hope promotes climate engagement (e.g., longitudinal designs) and also consider directly assessing populations of interest (e.g., climate activists).

Caring About One’s Legacy Relates to Constructive Coping with Climate Change

“…A person who does not feel any hope about the future of climate change and who believes humanity is doomed is unlikely to be concerned about how (doomed) future generations might remember them. While previous work did not find a connection between hope about societal efficacy for addressing climate change (Geiger et al, 2023), the connection between that kind of hope and legacy motivation is unclear. One aim of this work is to understand whether legacy motives relate to feelings of constructive hope or hope based in denial and how hope relates to the ways people respond to climate change threat information and intentions to adopt proenvironmental behaviors (Study 2).…”

“…In one study, promoting feelings of hopefulness decreased a sense of threat and willingness to sacrifice for climate change (Bilandzic et al, 2017), but in other samples participants who expressed or experienced hope about climate change rooted in trust in others, positive-reappraisals, feelings of determination, and perceptions that barriers can be overcome ('constructive hope') were also more likely to be proenvironmental in their attitudes and behaviors (Ojala, 2012;2023). One meta-analysis (Geiger et al, 2023) found that certain kinds of hope (particularly hope that one would be able to engage in effective climate action) relate to greater climate engagement, but hope based in denial related to less engagement. An alternative view of the relationship between hope and legacy is that a sense of hope may be necessary for one to become concerned about one's legacy.…”

Muddling through Climate Change: A Qualitative Exploration of India and U.S. Climate Experts’ Perspectives on Solutions, Pathways, and Barriers

“…Research has shown that hope can be a powerful motivator. A meta-analysis found that those who felt hopeful about getting involved with taking action on climate change were much more willing to take action and support policy to address the issue [54]. In contrast, feeling hopeful about climate change more generally or society's ability to address it (rather than hope about personally getting involved) was not as strongly associated with action or policy support.…”

Refining relational climate conversations to promote collective action

“…That is, collective climate action may be perceived as something to perhaps be pursued (hypothetical distance) in the future (temporal distance), elsewhere (spatial distance), by others unlike oneself (social distance) (Table 1). Attention to the psychological distance of collective climate action could help to "transform the notions of collective action and community into something more concrete and tangible" 25 , thereby generating "empowering hope" rooted in plans to personally take action 26 .…”