Hope Comes in Many Forms: Out-Group Expressions of Hope Override Low Support and Promote Reconciliation in Conflicts

In conflicts, political attitudes are based to some extent on the perception of the out-group as sharing the goal of peace and supporting steps to achieve it. However, intractable conflicts are characterized by inconsistent and negative interactions, which prevent clear messages of out-group support. This problem calls for alternative ways to convey support between groups in conflict. One such method is emotional expressions. The current research tested whether, in the absence of out-group support for peace, observing expressions of out-group hope induces conciliatory attitudes. Results from two experimental studies, conducted within the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, revealed support for this hypothesis. Expressions of Palestinian hope induced acceptance of a peace agreement through Israeli hope and positive perceptions of the proposal when out-group support expressions were low. Findings demonstrate the importance of hope as a means of conveying information within processes of conflict resolution, overriding messages of low out-group support for peace

Is hope good for motivating collective action in the context of climate change? Differentiating hope's emotion- and problem-focused coping functions

Climate change may be the most fundamental collective action problem of all time. To solve it through collective action, collective motivation is required. Yet, given the complexity and scale of the collective problem, it may be difficult for individuals to experience such motivation. Intriguingly, the experience of hope may increase collective motivation and action. We offer an integrative coping perspective on hope and collective action in the context of climate change. It explains how hope stimulates individuals' collective motivation to act against climate change (serving a problem-focused coping function), or fails to do so (serving an emotion-focused coping function). Testing these competing hypotheses, we conducted three studies that experimentally manipulated a core antecedent of hope (i.e., the perceived possibility of change) among US participants (total N = 1020). Across the board, this manipulation increased individuals' hope but not their collective motivation and action. Furthermore, collective motivation predicted collective action intentions across all three studies. Hoping thus seems to serve an emotion-focused coping function and hence may not increase the collective motivation required for collective action in the context of climate change

HOPE AND CHANGE IN INTRACTABLE CONFLICT: INDUCING CONCILIATORY ATTITUDES THROUGH INTERGROUP EMOTION

Intractable conflicts have extremely harmful consequences for security, property, and well-being. One of the unique characteristics of such conflicts is the perception of irresolvability held by all those involved, and the associated emotion of hopelessness, which dominates the collective narrative. Despite this, relatively little research has investigated the role of hope in changing attitudes in intractable conflicts. This thesis reports a programme of research that systematically investigates the psychology of hope and change in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In particular, I examine the effect that hope has on attitudes for peace, and develop ways in which hope can be experimentally induced within such extreme and violent situations. The results of 9 studies provide evidence that by promoting generalised perceptions of change, hope for peace can be induced. Additionally, results revealed that experiencing hope for peace led to support for conciliatory policies needed for conflict resolution. Further findings suggest that when outgroups express hope for peace, these expressions can, under specific conditions, promote ingroup hope for peace. Overall, this thesis contributes to a greater understanding of the role of hope and change in intractable conflicts, and how hope can be used as a tool for peace-making and reconciliation

The role of hope in social change processes

Hope is an emotion focused on imagining and desiring a better future, which has been described as crucial for human survival in difficult situations and inducing goal-oriented behaviour. By inspiring thoughts and imagery about a positive future goal, change becomes more possible, making hope a pivotal emotion in processes of social change. In conflict, a plethora of work shows that hope facilitates intergroup harmony and induces conciliatory attitudes that are crucial for mobilizing and supporting conflict resolution. In processes of collective action, a more complex picture emerges. Here, hope for change has been found to be a condition necessary for the emergence of collective action motivation and intentions. On the other hand, hope may hinder such motivations under certain conditions and in specific contexts. Overall, it is important to understand, and perhaps harness the power of hope in processes of social change.</p

Emotional Processes in Intractable Conflicts: Integrating Descriptive and Interventionist Approaches

Intractable intergroup conflicts are extreme, prolonged, and violent forms of intergroup conflict, which involve unique socio-psychological dynamics. As such, they offer challenges in using widely established and successful approaches to intergroup relations and harmony. One approach which has gained growing attention in this context addresses the role of emotions as an avenue to changing attitudes, behaviors and even support for policies in intergroup intractable conflicts. The role of emotional processes in conflicts can be studied from two very different perspectives. The first is a more descriptive one, in which scholars examine the role played by individuals’ and groups’ emotional experience in conflict situations. The second perspective, which has gained increasing attention in the recent decades, is a more interventionist one, focusing on the way emotional change (or regulation) can promote conciliatory attitudes and behaviors among the conflict's involved parties. The following chapter offers for the first time an integrative model, bringing together both the descriptive and the interventionist approaches. Put differently, this model encapsulates both the role of emotional experiences in preserving and perpetuating conflicts, and the potential role of emotion regulation in contributing to conflict resolution

Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high

Surprisingly, hope is under-researched in contemporary social-psychological explanations of collective action and social change. This may be because collective action research typically focuses on "high-hope" contexts in which it is generally assumed that change is possible (the main appraisal of hope), and thus the main question is whether "we" can change the situation through collective action (i.e., group efficacy beliefs). This line of thought implies that such beliefs should only motivate collective action when hope is high. To test this hypothesis, we conducted three experiments in contexts that were not "high-hope". In Study 1, conducted within the "low-hope" context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we found that manipulated group efficacy beliefs did not increase individuals' collective action intentions. Studies 2 and 3 used the contexts of NHS privatization in the United Kingdom and Gun Control Reform in the United States - contexts that were neither "low-hope" nor "high-hope", which enabled us to manipulate hope and group efficacy beliefs together in one design. Consistent with our hypothesis, findings of both experiments revealed that group efficacy beliefs only predicted collective action when hope was high. Replicating Study 1, when hope was low, group efficacy had no effect on collective action intentions. We discuss our findings in light of the idea that only when hope for social change is established, the question of whether "we" can create change through collective action becomes relevant. Without hope, there can be no basis for agency, which informs goal-directed action

Hope: The experience and functions of a seemingly-positive group-based emotion

Hope has intrigued and attracted humans for centuries, with views on this emotion ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. To deepen and nuance our understanding of hope – a seemingly positive emotion – we apply to it a valence/function framework of emotion in group-based contexts. This framework facilitates the examination and categorisation of emotions as positive or negative along two orthogonal dimensions: the pleasantness of the emotional experience and their social outcomes. According to this framework, emotions can “move” on both dimensions (i.e. be experienced as pleasant or unpleasant and lead to functional versus dysfunctional outcomes), based on various factors. Applying this framework to group-based hope may seem surprising, as the emotion is often considered universally good. Yet a more nuanced approach reveals situations in which group-based hope can be a “do bad” emotion, and, at times, can even “feel bad.” We discuss the implications of these understandings for research on hope and its applications across different group contexts.</p

Hope: The experience and functions of a seemingly-positive group-based emotion

Hope has intrigued and attracted humans for centuries, with views on this emotion ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. To deepen and nuance our understanding of hope – a seemingly positive emotion – we apply to it a valence/function framework of emotion in group-based contexts. This framework facilitates the examination and categorisation of emotions as positive or negative along two orthogonal dimensions: the pleasantness of the emotional experience and their social outcomes. According to this framework, emotions can “move” on both dimensions (i.e. be experienced as pleasant or unpleasant and lead to functional versus dysfunctional outcomes), based on various factors. Applying this framework to group-based hope may seem surprising, as the emotion is often considered universally good. Yet a more nuanced approach reveals situations in which group-based hope can be a “do bad” emotion, and, at times, can even “feel bad.” We discuss the implications of these understandings for research on hope and its applications across different group contexts.</p

Why do people send rude work-emails?

BackgroundWork-email incivility involves violating social norms in work-email communication by being disrespectful, discourteous or insensitive towards others. Work-email incivility is pernicious and problematic in digital working life, with negative repercussions for recipients, in terms of well-being and work performance indicators. However, whilst research has told us much about the repercussions of work-email incivility, we still know little about why people instigate work-email incivility in the first instance. To understand the root causes of work-email incivility, we undertook a 4-study mixed methods programme of research (including 2 pre-registered online experiments). We identify how low resources and negative emotions interact to potentiate uncivil work-email exchanges. We use the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, and self-regulation theory to frame our studies.MethodStudies 1 (N=63) and 2 (N=15) were undertaken with a large public-sector organisation using time separated surveys (Study 1) and qualitative interviews (Study 2). We examined the precursors to self-reported incidences of perpetrated work-email incivility. These precursors were then examined in Studies 3 (N=196) and 4 (N=355) using an experimental online research design. Vignettes were presented to working adults via the Prolific platform. In Study 3 (repeated measures), three low resource conditions were presented and the different impact these had on experienced emotions and intentions to instigate incivility were measured (alongside measures of individual differences). In Study 4 (independent measures), the mediation effect of negative emotion on intention to instigate incivility following exposure to low resource conditions was tested.ResultsStudies 1 and 2 revealed that low resources (e.g. lack of time, energy, information and interpersonal skills) are likely to lead to the instigation of work-email incivility, especially if people experience negative emotions in relation to their low resources. We tested this further in Studies 3 and 4 and found that a lack of time (compared with information and energy) was most proximal to the experience of negative emotions, especially anger, and that this was most strongly associated with intentions to instigate incivility. We also found that those with low levels of interpersonal skill (low Agreeableness) were more likely to instigate incivility in such conditions.ConclusionWhen people are experiencing resource depletion at work, this can create conditions for instigating work-email incivility, especially via the emotional experience of anger. People with lower levels of Agreeableness are more susceptible to this. We discuss how low stable (e.g. Agreeableness) and volatile (e.g. Time) resources can interfere with people’s ability to regulate themselves effectively, making it more likely that they will contravene social norms in relation to appropriate conduct and etiquette when dealing with work-email.</p

Perceptions of a Changing World Induce Hope and Promote Peace in Intractable Conflicts

The importance of hope in promoting conciliatory attitudes has been asserted in the field of conflict resolution. However, little is known about conditions inducing hope, especially in intractable conflicts, where reference to the outgroup may backfire. In the current research, five studies yielded convergent support for the hypothesis that hope for peace stems from a general perception of the world as changing. In Study 1, coders observed associations between belief in a changing world, hope regarding peace, and support for concessions. Study 2 revealed the hypothesized relations using self-reported measures. Studies 3 and 4 established causality by instilling a perception of the world as changing (vs. unchanging) using narrative and drawing manipulations. Study 5 compared the changing world message with a control condition during conflict escalation. Across studies, although the specific context was not referred to, the belief in a changing world increased support for concessions through hope for peace