The Virtuous Circle of Hope: Results and Conclusions from the Hope-Barometer Research Project

The Virtuous Circle of Hope:
Results and Conclusions from the
Hope-Barometer Research Project

Andreas M. Krafft

Institute of Systemic Management and Public Governance
University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
e-mail: andreas.krafft@unisg.ch

Keywords: Perceived Hope, Human Virtuous, Positive Emotions, Eudaimonia

Background: The most diffused theory of hope understands hope as a goal-oriented cognitive, motivational and self-centred disposition [1]. Other authors recognize hope as a human virtue necessary for man’s psychosocial development [2] and underline the emotional and transformative character of hope with the effect of fostering personal growth and well-being [3]. Even though hope is a universal human phenomenon, its concrete experience and expression are quite culture specific [4]. There is still an open issue as to how to assess hope in order to gain access to individuals’ own understanding and level of hope [5].
Aim: The main purpose of this study is to assess the character, the elements and levels of hope as reported by the German speaking population. Furthermore, we want to study the interrelations between the many different elements of hope and the general level of hope. Based on these results, conclusions can be drawn about the general nature of hope.
Method: The Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) is a short measure for targeting hope in a direct manner [6]. Further instruments for the assessment of different dimensions of hope are: (1) targets of hope, (2) activities performed to attain the targets hoped-for, and (3) hope providers people count on. The Hope-Barometer is a cross-sectional internet survey. For this study we use original data from the 2017 data collection (N=3306). Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression coefficients.
Results: Regarding the 17 targets of hope, the significant predictors of Perceived Hope at p<.001 turned out to be: (1) helping other people (β=.13), (2) religious and spiritual experiences (β=.11), (3) a happy family (β=.12), (4) meaningful tasks (β=.09), (5) personal health (β=.16), and (6) good personal relationships (β=.07). Hedonic oriented hopes like more time to relax, more spare time, more sex, and more fun with friends were not significant. Using the 16 hope providers as predictors, the three significant predictive (p<.001) items of Perceived Hope are: (1) I give myself hope (β=.29); (2) God (β=.15); and (3) Wife, husband, partner (β=.10). With the 13 items of activities to fulfill one’s own hopes, six activities had a significant predictive power regarding hope (at p<.001): (1) I take responsibility (β=.19); (2) I motivate my family (β=.12); (3) I trust God (β=.12); (4) I talk with my spouse/partner (β=.10); (5) I motivate my friends (β=.07), and (6) I pray and meditate (β=.06).
Conclusions: In analogy to Ryan, Huta and Deci’s [7] first- and second-order goals, we suggest to differentiate between first- and second-order targets and sources of hope. First-order targets of hope belong mainly to the edaimonic domain and nurture the general level of hope, while other life domains related to hedonic experiences seem to have no relation at all with the perception of hope. The fundamental conclusion is that the eudaimonic aspects in life are the main sources of hope and at the same time the most important targets of hope, giving rise to a mutually reinforcing virtuous circle of hope [8].

References
1. Snyder, C. R. (2002) Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological inquiry, 13(4), 249-275.
2. Erikson, E. (1963) Childhood and Society. 2d ed., rev. and enl. W.W. Norton & Co.: New York.
3. Fredrickson, B.(2013) Positive emotions broaden and build. Advances in experimental social psychology, 47(1), 1-53.
4. Averill, J. R., & Sundararajan, L. (2005) Hope as rhetoric: Cultural narratives of wishing and coping. In: Eliott, J. (ed.) Interdisciplinary perspectives on hope, Nova Science Publ.: New York, 133-165.
5. Tong, E. M., Fredrickson, B. L., Chang, W., & Lim, Z. X. (2010) Re-examining hope: The roles of agency thinking and pathways thinking. Cognition and Emotion, 24(7), 1207-1215.
6. Krafft, A. M., Martin-Krumm, C., & Fenouillet, F. (2017). Adaptation, Further Elaboration, and Validation of a Scale to Measure Hope as Perceived by People: Discriminant Value and Predictive Utility Vis-à-Vis Dispositional Hope. Assessment, DOI: 10.1177/1073191117700724.
7. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2013) Living well: A self-determination theory perspec-tive on eudaimonia. Delle Fave (Ed.) The Exploration of Happiness: Present and Future Perspectives. Springer Netherlands, 117-139.
8. Krafft, A.M. & Walker, A.M. (2018) (Eds.) Hope for a Good Life. Results of the Hope-Barometer International Research Program. Heidelberg: Springer Social Indicators Research Series vol. 72.