Worldviews and Basic Beliefs of Hope

Abstract

To further elaborate on the concept of hope outlined in Chap. 2, the purpose of this contribution is to investigate the role of basic beliefs and worldviews in sustaining the general perception of hope in different cultures. We begin by introducing the theoretical concepts about the nature of basic beliefs and worldviews, especially with regard to a future-oriented thinking. Employing the Perceived Hope Scale, the Dispositional Hope Scale, the Assumptive Worldviews, and several variables of subjective and psychological well-being, we investigate the levels and predictors of hope in six distinct samples of the Hope Barometer 2017 (N = 6548). Our findings support the notion of hope as a multidimensional phenomenon with certain universal features across cultures while recognizing that people in different cultures experience hope based on specific worldviews, independently from the nation’s economic wealth.

5.1 Introduction

The orthodox conceptualization of hope in philosophy maintains that the phenomenon of hope is constituted by a wish or desire for some good and the belief in the possibility of its realization. According to current philosophical debates, these two aspects seem to be necessary but not sufficient elements of hope (Milona, 2020). The model developed in Chap. 2 is based on this standard account and incorporates additional elements coming from current philosophical and psychological studies (Bovens, 1999; Meirav, 2009; Milona, 2019; Krafft & Walker, 2018a, 2018b; Scioli & Biller, 2009). Hope is therefore composed by a wish or desire for a valuable good or goal, the belief that its realization is possible, the awareness of difficulties, obstacles and setbacks and the trust in our own and other resources that helps us to overcome such obstacles and nourishes our willpower.

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the second domain of this hope concept, which is the role basic beliefs play in sustaining and fostering hope. According to philosophical considerations that are supported by empirical evidence from psychological studies, hope is distinct from optimism in the sense that the hoping person believes in an even small possibility of attaining a certain wish, whereas to be optimistic, the outcome has to be retained as rather or highly probable (Bruininks & Malle, 2005; Krafft et al., 2021; Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010; Scioli et al., 1997). Fundamentally, whereas future expectations, on which the concepts of dispositional hope (Snyder, 2002) and optimism (Scheier et al., 2001) are based, are grounded on rational considerations, hope is basically related to personal beliefs (Leung et al., 2009). In a broader sense, hope is anchored in the belief that the future will provide new possibilities and current situations can (but not necessarily will) change for the better.

The belief in the possibility (or impossibility) of a desired outcome is largely of subjective nature. One hundred years ago, most people would have considered the idea of traveling to the moon as ridiculous. In past epochs, the abolishment of slavery, the equality of rights for men and women or the marriage of homosexual couples were rendered unthinkable. However, over time certain people began to believe that change is possible, that things previously considered to be impossible can be achieved. Based on this belief, they engaged themselves to fulfill their visions. Today, many of these ideas are a self-evident reality in many countries.

We are confronted daily with questions such as when, how and why do people believe in the even slight possibility of a certain outcome? For example: Why does someone believe in the possibility of recovering from a chronic illness? When does a person believe in the possibility of getting a new job during an economic crisis at the age of 60? How do parents believe that their child will successfully complete high school, despite current troubles during adolescence? The answers to these and similar questions will depend not only on objective facts but also on individual and collective beliefs and worldviews, something we will explore in the following sections.

Several researchers in psychology have incorporated personal and cultural beliefs in the study of hope (see Averill et al., 1990; Averill & Sundararajan, 2005; Scioli & Biller, 2009; Tennen et al., 2002). These authors maintained that the nature of hope must be understood in the context of the cultures in which the term is embedded. Further, they emphasized a variety of dimensions and experiences such as social trust, positive emotions, and spiritual faith, above cognition, self-mastery, and personal control. In our study, we would like to follow and further develop this tradition by investigating in more detail the role of basic beliefs and cultural characteristics in the experience of hope.

5.2 Theoretical Background

5.2.1 Basic Beliefs and the Role and Nature of Worldviews

All human beings have basic beliefs, assumptions and attitudes that guide their perceptions about the world and themselves as well as their behavior (Allport, 1955). These fundamental beliefs and assumptions tend to be coherently structured in belief systems, narratives, and attitudes towards life, which are condensed in individual and collective worldviews. Kant was one of the first philosophers who used the term “worldview” (in German “Weltanschauung”) to describe a person’s broad outlook to the world (Kant, 1790/1987 in Nilsson, 2013). More than 100 years later, two other German Philosophers, Wilhelm Dilthey (1890/1957) and Karl Jaspers (1919), formulated a comprehensive theory of the nature, purpose, and development of worldviews as a fundamental philosophy of life.

According to Dilthey (1890/1957), worldviews are the attempt to explain “the riddle of life”. The paradox of worldviews is that they are anchored in daily experiences and at the same time focus on things that transcend the observable world. Worldviews, as a set of basic beliefs, assumptions, and values, are especially relevant when one is confronted with the unknown, where uncertainties and inconsistencies arise, where we feel an urge to explain the inexplicable. As soon as our daily knowledge and understanding encounters limits, higher forms of understanding develop. In a world full of uncertainties and inconsistencies, we develop theories why things are the way they are. We form a picture of reality as we experience and imagine it. In order to understand the sometimes incomprehensible, we think about reasons and create an explanation of the nature of the world and ourselves (Koltko-Rivera, 2004).

Over the past decades, the topic of worldviews, basic beliefs and assumptions has attracted the attention of scientists and researchers in several areas of psychology (Nilsson, 2013; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Koltko-Rivera, 2004; Ibrahim, 1984, 1985, 2003; Clifton et al., 2019). Although there is still no unifying psychological theory of worldviews and basic beliefs, all dedicated authors agree on the fundamental role of these phenomena in our psychological processes. Worldviews are formed by basic believes and assumptions about the world and the social environment that are intimately connected to cognition, emotions, and behavior (Koltko-Rivera, 2004).

Worldviews are also consistent narratives that connect the past, the present and the future in a coherent way. The definition of Koltko-Rivera is especially suitable to understand the role of worldviews in studying future expectations and hope:

A worldview is a way of describing the universe and life within it, both in terms of what is and what ought to be. A given worldview is a set of beliefs that includes limiting statements and assumptions regarding what exists and what does not (either in actuality, or in principle), what objects or experiences are good or bad, and what objectives, behaviors, and relationships are desirable or undesirable. A worldview defines what can be known or done in the world, and how it can be known or done. In addition to defining what goals can be sought in life, a worldview defines what goals should be pursued. Worldviews include assumptions that may be unproven, and even unprovable, but these assumptions are superordinate, in that they provide the epistemic and ontological foundations for other beliefs within a belief system. (Koltko-Rivera, 2004, p. 4).

5.2.2 Worldviews, the Self, and Hope for the Future

Dilthey’s (1890/1957) pioneering and systematic philosophy of worldviews has the purpose to explain the enigma of life itself. The possession of worldviews is a condition underlying human life. The meaning and nature of life can only be grasped through our worldviews that give answers to questions such as: Who am I? Why do I exist? What am I supposed to do in this world? The structural elements of worldviews are concordant with the three elements of the human experience, i.e., cognition, emotion and will. The cognitive picture of the world and oneself is laden with affective value. Objects and experiences are perceived as friendly or harmful and valued as worthy or unworthy. At the meta-level, the person develops the supreme concept of the highest good and value of life and defines the ideal of how to live one’s personal life. This results in a comprehensive life plan including personal and social goals, principles, and norms of action to shape one’s future (Aerts et al., 1994).

Therefore, from a psychological perspective, worldviews are not only a set of basic beliefs and assumptions that describe reality or lenses with which the individual looks at the world. Worldviews are much more than that. They are embedded in the individual’s psychological structure and become an integral part of his/her personality in terms of cognition, volition, affect, and behavior (Nilsson, 2014). Worldviews not only define how we see the world but also who we are, how we feel, think and act. Our fundamental perspective on life, of how we conceive the world and ourselves, the meaning and the reality of life, all our existence is rooted in our worldviews (Ibrahim & Heuer, 2016).

Fundamental assumptions about the world and ourselves have an impact on the way a person anticipates future events (Kelly, 1955). People’s thoughts, emotions and judgements are strongly influenced by their beliefs about what will or can happen. Since different people can have different worldviews, they will also differ from each other in the way they assess present and future reality (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Beck (1974), for example, demonstrated how beliefs about the self (e.g., “I’m worthless”), the self’s future (e.g., “My future seems dark.”), and the external environment create a sense of hopelessness that plays a fundamental role in the emergence of depression.

Janoff-Bulman (1992) developed a model of generalized fundamental assumptions about the nature and meaningfulness of the world and oneself as a requirement for optimal human functioning. Reverting to Erikson’s first developmental stage in early childhood, she argued that the child’s view of self, world, and the connection between both originates in early preverbal interactions with the caregivers. For Erikson (1998), hope is the first basic virtue emerging from the positive development in the conflict between anxiety and trust, which leaves a lasting tendency in the child to believe in fulfilling his/her existential needs despite the distress and anger associated with them. This basic trust and hope become part of human identity, a basic sense of order and consistency between past, present, and future, maintained throughout life. Based on such experiences, the infant continues to establish positive expectations about the world, the nature of other people, of the own self, and the future.

These fundamental assumptions of hope and trust are the basis for personal growth and development. Janoff-Bulman refers to an episode in William James’ life, where hope and confidence in himself were the keys to overcome fear and mistrust:

In this case (and it is one of an immense class) the part of wisdom clearly is to believe what one desires… There are then cases when faith creates its own verification. Believe, and you shall be right, for you shall save yourself; doubt, and you shall be right, for you shall perish. The only difference is that to believe is greatly to your advantage. (James, 1962, cited in Janoff-Bulman, 1992, p. 24).

5.2.3 Types of Worldviews

Authors in many disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology and psychology have identified primal basic beliefs and fundamental assumptions that converge in certain typical worldviews. For example, Rokeach (1968) distinguished between existential beliefs (things are true or false), evaluative beliefs (the judgement of good or bad), and prescriptive beliefs (states, goals or actions that are considered desirable or undesirable). One basic belief concerns the quality and basic character of human nature as good or evil (Wrightsman, 1962). In daily life, people tend to generalize from their experiences and believe in the goodness and kindness of people, or, alternatively, that people are essentially self-centered and selfish. Those who believe in altruism believe that people sincerely care and will help others in need and give them hope. Another belief is aligned with the self-concept and relationships with other people. Triandis (1995) highlights the importance of the individualist-collectivist orientations in establishing the self-concept, personal goals, and preferred actions.

Some beliefs are related to the future consequences of current actions. A widely held belief is that of a just (or unjust) world, i.e., the belief that people usually get what they deserve (e.g., life blesses good people and punishes the bad) (Lerner, 1980). An alternative assumption is that of randomness, meaning that things happen by chance without any logic or meaning. Another basic belief is related to what Rotter (1966) denominated locus of control: the individual’s perception of the underlying main causes of events in life. A person-centered worldview will rely on the agency, ability, and efforts of the individual to master life challenges. The external locus of control is the belief in external forces not only in terms of powerful others but also in terms of luck, fate, destiny, etc.

One of the most fundamental attitudes or moods of life, as Dilthey (1890/1957) called them, is that of optimism and pessimism (Ibrahim & Heuer, 2016). The optimistic worldview is based on the assumption that more positive than negative things will happen to oneself (Carver & Scheier, 2014). This belief nurtures a sense of confidence and fosters a positive expectation about the future. The opposite is the pessimistic worldview, where one expects more negative than positive things to happen in one’s life. People with a pessimistic basic attitude not only perceive the world as threatening but also tend to create a negative self-evaluation of themselves (Ibrahim, 1993).

Further types of basic beliefs are related to a religious or spiritual vs. a materialistic worldview. Huber and Huber (2012) as well as Zinnbauer and Pargament (2005), among others, have studied how the centrality of religious/spiritual beliefs and experiences affect the individual’s attitudes, cognitions, affects, and behaviors. For example, religious and spiritual beliefs can consider the world and the universe to be an interconnected unity guided by a Divine Being or consciousness with which people on earth should live in harmony. In this case, hope is directed to something greater than oneself or the material world, transcending the physical reality, both in terms of what religious people ultimately hope for (e.g., the communion with the Divine) and the sources of their hope (e.g., the loving kindness of an almighty Divine Power). Despite their basic transcendent character, these kinds of beliefs have a strong impact on the expectations, decisions and behaviors of people in the here and now.

5.2.4 Worldviews and Culture

Every person experiences life differently, and at the same time, there are certain aspects of life grounded in habits, traditions, and norms that are common to society and give people an inherent psychic order or epistemic certainty. For Dilthey (1890/1957), worldviews always emerge within a historical and cultural context. From a social constructivist perspective, worldviews are culturally transmitted in order to give a sense of coherence to people’s experiences (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Through socialization within a socio-historical and family context, shared worldviews transmit a sense of meaning, stability, and security to its members. Many researchers have studied the cultural differences in cognition, values and basic beliefs and have demonstrated that culture has a great impact on cognition, emotions and behavior (Lonner & Adamopoulos, 1997; Hong et al., 2000).

Culture has been defined as a “shared set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, values, and behaviors organized around a central theme and found among speakers of one language, in one time period, and in one geographic region.” (Triandis, 1997, p. 443). People of the same culture perceive and judge things and act in a similar way. Every culture includes a certain approach to the world and to life. This means that cultural beliefs about how things are and how they should be are constituent of the individual’s perception and volition (Miller, 1999). Therefore, worldviews can be seen as socially shared meaning and belief systems that can originate from religions, philosophies, scientific paradigms, political ideologies, and a certain “Zeitgeist” or spirit of a community. Through the influence of culture, many assumptions and beliefs are taken for granted without conscious deliberation (Nilsson, 2013).

Some authors even talk about a collective or cultural mentality, mood or identity that combine the past, the present and the future, generating strong and long-lasting basic attitudes toward individual and social realities such as family, happiness, work, the economy etc. (Dana, 1993; Ibrahim & Heuer, 2016). Therefore, basic beliefs combine the way in which reality is interpreted with a sense of the possible. The meaning of the current reality and the sense of future possibilities are closely intertwined. For Dilthey (1890/1957), our task is to open up our spaces of experience as well as our horizons of future possibilities in order to broaden our worldviews and foster personal and social development and growth.

It is important to remark that cultural identities are seldom completely homogeneous and free of inner tensions. Within a dominant culture, a variety of ethnic, religious, sexual, educational, professional, social and regional subcultures can emerge. These subcultures can share a set of basic assumptions and beliefs but also develop alternative perspectives, attitudes, values, and goals that can even contradict the dominant worldviews (Ibrahim et al., 2001). Thanks to these processes, cultures and worldviews are not rigid but in continuous evolution. New life experiences, ideas, and wishes contribute from time to time to an inner renewal of social and personal beliefs and worldviews (Naugle, 2002).

5.2.5 Basic Beliefs and Science

Both the everyday experiences and expectations of laypersons as well as philosophical and scientific theories and concepts with their own views on reality and their preferred methods are driven by basic assumptions, beliefs, and worldviews (Dilthey, 1890/1957). Answers to the question about the nature and role of human agency, personality, virtues, free will etc., are embedded in dominant and alternative worldviews. The variety of philosophical systems and psychological disciplines that intend to find the best explanation for human motives and behavior is always a product of a socio-historical context of dominant beliefs, values, and interests.

This is also the case for all disciplines studying the phenomenon of hope from so many different angles, such as the religious, the cognitive, the philosophical, the cultural and the affective among others (Eliott, 2005). Since hope is not a material good or objective fact but an existential inner reality expressed by experiences, feelings, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, wishes, and values, no single theory could claim universal validity to describe such a complex phenomenon. The goal should be to expand our view by studying hope from different angles and with different lenses and to try to integrate as much as possible a variety of (sometimes contradicting) ideas and approaches.

To do so, we should overcome the dualistic either-or-thinking and replace it by a both-and-attitude, with which we can accept and integrate different worldviews into a larger framework. This does not mean that, for practical reasons, we should not focus on one or the other aspect of hope, for example, in order to design effective interventions for specific settings and purposes. However, if the aim is to understand hope in its different facets and contexts, we should elaborate a much more open and comprehensive epistemological, ontological and methodological research program, at the same time acknowledging that every approach will always have its strengths and limitations.

5.2.6 Assessing Worldviews and Basic Assumptions

Janoff-Bulman (1992) investigated how people react to existential life experiences and developed a theory and research instrument to understand better and evaluate implicit basic assumptions. In her view, the psychological mechanisms that occur in extreme situations can tell us a lot about the psychology of worldviews in our daily life. In our opinion, this is particularly true for the study of hope since hope emerges especially in critical life situations. Janoff-Bulman postulated that we usually operate on largely taken for granted fundamental assumptions about the external world and ourselves. These basic assumptions are theories and working models that guide our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, especially in anticipating or expecting what will happen in the future. She proposed that abstract beliefs belonging to three primary categories are at the core of our basic assumptions: The benevolence of the external world, our self-worth, and the meaningful relationship between them.

The first assumption is that of the belief in the benevolence of the world. In general terms, people believe that good things are prevalent over negative events. Most of us believe that the world is a good place to live and that people are basically kind, helpful, and caring. The more positive the assumptions regarding the external world are, the lower is the experience of distress and the higher that of subjective well-being (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Joseph & Linley, 2005).

The second category of basic assumptions is related to the meaningfulness of the world. We usually tend to believe that what happens to us and to other people makes sense. Especially in Western cultures, people used to believe in the moral principle of justice and the possibility of controlling desired outcomes. For example, whereas good people will engage in good actions and therefore experience good things, bad people who harm others will merit bad things occurring to them. This means that what happens in the world and to ourselves can be influenced by our own behavior. The belief in justice and control creates a sense of order and coherence. The opposite belief is that of chance. If events occur at random, they will lack any meaning and instill a sense of helplessness since there is nothing one can do to promote or avoid them.

The third fundamental assumption is that of self-worth, which comprises three dimensions. The first dimension involves a global evaluation of the self. Most people perceive themselves as good, decent, and therefore worthy individuals with sound self-esteem. The second dimension refers to the appropriateness and effectiveness of one’s actions. In general, we see ourselves engaging in responsible and competent actions and lastly being in control of our life. The third belief is that of luck or misfortune. Sometimes we are not able to control what happens to us. Despite this insufficient control, we can somehow feel protected from misfortune (or not).

Following the qualities of basic beliefs as culturally laden phenomena, we assume that the historical and cultural context may have an impact on the categories and dimensions of basic assumptions and that there could be different associations with the perception of hope. In individualistic cultures, people seem to be rather optimistic about their own lives but far less optimistic about the political and social environment (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). Furthermore, many Western cultures emphasize the principles of personal responsibility, control, and merit. In other cultures, a meaningful world is one governed by collective goals or religious beliefs. In such cultures, control does not rest on the individual but on the community or on a benevolent and almighty Deity responsible for rewarding or punishing people on earth. The role of the family, the characteristics of the education system, and the quality of social practices can have a huge impact on people’s basic assumptions as well as on the quality and the sources of hope.

5.3 The Present Study

5.3.1 Objectives

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the role of basic beliefs and assumptions in connection to the perception of hope in different cultures. For this purpose, we employ six national samples of the Hope Barometer collected in November 2017 and compare the levels and relationships of hope with basic assumptions about the world and oneself. One central research question is whether levels of hope in different countries are related to similar or different fundamental assumptions about the world and oneself beyond subjective and psychological well-being. With this, we intend to identify the main pillars and the nomological network of hope finding similarities and differences between the countries. Broadly, we would be able to identify possible universal features of hope as well as culture-specific characteristics.

5.3.2 Participants

We analyzed six selected sub-samples of the Hope Barometer collected in November 2017 with participants from the following countries and regions: German-speaking Switzerland (N = 3306), French-speaking Switzerland (N = 1308), Germany (N = 840), South Africa (N = 427), Israel (N = 477), and Poland (N = 190). The questionnaires were provided in German (Switzerland and Germany), French (Switzerland), English (South Africa), Hebrew (Israel), and Polish (Poland). Appendix 5.1 displays the demographic structure of the samples by gender, age, marital status, education, main activity, professional status, and religion. These countries were selected taking into account the best possible comparability between samples. The samples included participants from a wide age range, with the youngest participants in Israel and South Africa and the oldest in Germany. The age structure reflects the existing median age of the analyzed countries in a satisfactory way (Switzerland MED_age = 43, Germany MED_age = 48, South Africa MED_age = 28, Israel MED_age = 31, Poland MED_age = 42) (World Data retrieved from the Internet 22.12.2021).

In terms of gender, the total sample had a good distribution of 43.1% men and 56.9% women. The Israeli and the South African samples had a pronounced bias towards female participants. In order to improve the comparability among countries, therefore, we weighted all cases by gender.

The participants varied in terms of additional demographic characteristics. In comparison to the other countries, Germany and Poland included slightly more married people, and the Israeli sample somewhat more single participants. In terms of education, it was difficult to find a common structure due to the very different national education systems. Switzerland and Germany are well known for their unique dual vocational training system, which is barely known in other countries. Consequently, the Swiss and German samples include a larger number of participants with vocational training, whereas the other countries had more participants with tertiary and university education. Furthermore, the Israeli and the South African samples comprised (due to the age structure) a larger number of people in education or training.

There were noteworthy differences regarding religious denomination. Poland had the largest number of Catholic participants, while Germany had the largest, and South Africa had the lowest number of atheists or agnostics. In Israel, one third of the participants denominated themselves as Jewish, roughly 20% as spiritual persons without religion, about 23% as atheists/agnostics, and 20% as something different. In South Africa, a majority (more than one third) belonged to a Christian church other than the traditional Catholic and Protestant, and one-fifth declared to be spiritual but not to belong to an institutionalized religion. A peculiarity of South Africa is its heterogeneity in terms of ethnic groups. From the 427 participants in our survey, 247 (57.8%) were White, 145 (34.0%) Black, 20 (4.7%) Indian, and 9 (2.1%) colored (a South African census category for persons of mixed race).

Even though the samples are not strictly representative of the general population (which will be one of the limitations of our study), they comprise a satisfactory variety of people with different demographic backgrounds. The heterogeneity of the samples reflects the different socio-demographic structures of the individual countries and should be taken into account when interpreting results.

5.3.3 Procedure and Instruments

Data collection was performed through the annual online survey of the Hope Barometer in November 2017. Participants were recruited through newspapers via online advertisement, social media and e-mails. No incentives were offered. The inclusion criterion was a minimum age of 18. We used four categories of instruments to measure (1) general hope, (2) subjective well-being, (3) psychological well-being, and (4) basic beliefs about the world and oneself.

5.3.3.1 Instruments to Measure Hope

5.3.3.1.1 Perceived Hope Scale

To measure the general level of hope we used the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) developed by Krafft et al. (2019, 2021). The PHS was developed as a self-rating instrument to avoid any cultural bias regarding the nature and the quality of hope. Therefore, the PHS does not measure future expectations of goal attainment, nor different dimensions of hope, but the level and experience of hope as directly perceived by people, without enquiring about their roots and sources. The PHS is a unidimensional measure including six positively worded items to be rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The six items cover the general level of hope (e.g., “I feel hopeful”), the belief in the fulfillment of one’s hopes, whether hope outweighs anxiety and improves the quality of one’s life and if one can remain hopeful even in difficult times. In the current study the six items achieved a high internal consistency in all samples with Cronbach alpha values between α = .89 and α = .91.

To assess the self-centered and cognitive dimension of hope, we included the two sub-scales of agency and pathways proposed by Snyder et al. (1991).

5.3.3.1.2 Agency

Agency refers to the willpower and motivation that is needed to achieve one’s goals. Snyder (2000) also speaks of purposeful mental energy and determination. It is the personal expectation that one can effectively achieve the things that seem important to oneself. The Agency sub-scale consists of four items scored on a 6-point scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In our samples, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranged between α = 0.80 and α = 0.86.

5.3.3.1.3 Pathways

Pathways thinking is the perception and belief regarding one’s own abilities to find possible ways to achieve goals, especially when obstacles and difficulties occur on the way to the goal. It involves an attitude of self-confidence in the sense of “I will find a way out of this problem and reach my goal”. The four items are scored on a 6-point scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency coefficients ranged between α = 0.82 and α = 87.

5.3.3.2 Instruments to Measure Subjective Well-being

Subjective well-being comprises a cognitive and an emotional dimension.

5.3.3.2.1 Life-Satisfaction Scale

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SLS) assesses the global level of satisfaction with one’s own life, defined as the assessment of life circumstances in comparison to one’s expectations (Diener et al., 1985). It assesses the cognitive dimension of subjective well-being. The SLS consists of 5 items scored on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach alpha values in our study ranged between α = 0.87 and α = 0.92.

5.3.3.2.2 Scale for Positive and Negative Emotions (SPANE)

To measure positive and negative emotions we administered the 12 items scale designed by Diener et al. (2010). The participants were asked to think about what they have been doing and experiencing during the past 4 weeks and to score six positive and six negative feelings on a 5-point scale from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always). The internal consistency ranged from α = 0.90 to α = 0.95 for positive emotions and from α = 0.86 to α = 0.90 for negative emotions.

5.3.3.3 Instruments to Measure Psychological Well-being

To measure psychological well-being we used three variables assessing meaning in life, altruism (helping others) and harmony in life.

5.3.3.3.1 Meaning in Life

One central domain of psychological well-being is determined by the experience that one’s life has meaning and purpose. We measured this dimension with the presence of meaning in life sub-scale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006). The items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and showed a very good internal consistency between α = 0.85 and α = 0.91.

5.3.3.3.2 Helping Others

Helping others is a pro-social attitude and behavior that positively correlates with empathy, social responsibility and altruism, and negatively correlates with selfishness. We measured this attitude with a short-form of the Helping Attitude Scale (Nickell, 1998), employing 7 items with a 5-point scale from 1 to 5. Cronbach alpha reliability was also high in all samples, ranging between α = 0.87 and α = 0.91.

5.3.3.3.3 Harmony in Life

Kjell et al. (2016) have recently developed the Harmony in Life Scale to measure psychological experiences of inner balance, peace of mind, calm, and unity. The authors highlight the concept of harmony in life as being related to a holistic worldview that incorporates a more balanced and flexible approach to personal well-being (e.g., “Most aspects of my life are in balance”). The five items are scored on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and displayed good internal reliability of between α = 0.88 and α = 0.93.

5.3.3.4 Instruments to Measure Basic Beliefs and Assumptions about Oneself and the World

The World Assumptions Scale (WAS) of Janoff-Bulman (1989) consists of 32 items describing basic assumptions about the world and oneself. According to the theory, there are three basic categories and eight dimensions of such assumptions: (1) assumptions about the goodness of the world and of people (which are merged into one variable); (2) assumptions about the meaningfulness of what is happening in this world with the dimensions justice, controllability and randomness; and (3) assumptions about oneself including self-worth, self-control, and luck. Respondents are asked to respond to them on a 6-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale includes seven sub-scales:

• Benevolence. The benevolence of the world and of people addresses the belief that the world is a good place and that most people are basically good, friendly, and caring. Janoff-Bulman (1992) and other researchers (Elklit et al., 2007) recognized that the eight items load on one single factor, which was also the case in our samples. Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability of the eight items ranged from α = 0.83 to α = 0.87.

• Justice. The first dimension of a meaningful world is the belief in an implicit justice on earth. People who do good will also receive something good in return. People who do bad things will have to bear the consequences of their actions. The internal reliability coefficients of the four items ranged from α = 0.70 to α = 0.78.

• Controllability. One can be more or less convinced of the controllability or manageability of events. Through their own behavior, people can “control” the world and the events in it if they do the right things. Alpha coefficients of the four items ranged from α = 0.74 to α = 0.76.

• Randomness. The third assumption regarding a sense of meaningfulness concerns the degree of randomness or coincidence with which certain things seem to happen. When events happen purely by chance, one will feel at the mercy of them and there will hardly be anything that can be done for or against them. The internal consistency displayed by the four items was at an acceptable level from α = 0.65 to α = 0.73.

• Self-worth. The first assumption about oneself concerns one’s own self-worth or self-esteem, which is the extent to which people perceive themselves as good, lovable and decent individuals, or on the contrary as unworthy, bad and guilty. In our study, alpha coefficients for the four items ranged between α = 0.74 and α = 0.79.

• Self-control. The second belief about oneself is the concept of self-control, defined as the perception that the person is doing the right things in life and that he or she is in control of his/her life. It addresses the degree to which one views oneself as engaging in right behaviors to control outcomes. The internal consistency of the four items was at an acceptable level between α = 0.64 and α = 0.71.

• Luck. The third basic assumption regarding oneself refers to the perception that one has good or bad luck in life. This entails the belief that one is somehow protected from negative forces from the outside world. The four items of this subscale reached good reliability coefficients from α = 0.79 to α = 0.87.

• Religiosity. Not covered by the WAS but nonetheless an important dimension of basic beliefs is the centrality of religiosity in one’s life. To measure it, we employed the short-form of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSRFQ) (Plante & Boccaccini, 1997; Storch et al., 2004). Individuals with strong religious faith pray and go to church regularly, find meaning and purpose and take decisions guided by their faith, and enjoy being with others who share their faith (Plante & Boccaccini, 1997). The five items to be scored on a 4-point scale (1 to 4) revealed an excellent internal consistency between α = 0.90 and α = 0.94.

5.3.4 Data Analysis

For the statistical analyses, we used IBM SPSS and AMOS version 27.0. In order to be able to compare mean values between countries, it is advisable to test the invariance of the employed measure between groups. Therefore, by means of multi-group CFA we tested group invariance between all samples for the six items of the Perceived Hope Scale, the main construct and instrument used to assess the general level of hope. Data analyses were then performed in three steps:

• Step 1: Firstly, mean values (and standard deviations) were calculated for perceived hope and all well-being and basic assumption variables. We then compared data between samples using univariate and multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). To improve the comparability of the samples, we weighted the cases by gender.

• Step 2: Through partial bivariate correlations we analyzed the relationships between the well-being variables, the dimensions of basic beliefs, and perceived hope (after controlling for demographic variables) and compared selected results between samples via correlation comparisons (Steiger, 1980).

• Step 3: Afterwards we performed multiple regressions to predict perceived hope. Following the theoretical considerations of worldviews, we expected that basic assumptions and beliefs about the world and oneself will constitute an additional set of predictors resulting in higher R² values of explained variance in perceived hope, but that the effects could vary between countries. This could be the case beyond demographic variables (gender, age, marital status, education, main activity and professional status), subjective well-being, and psychological well-being. Therefore, we compared the effects of predictive power and explained variance and identified similarities and differences between samples.

5.3.5 Results

5.3.5.1 Group Invariance of the PHS

In order to be able to compare mean values of the PHS and relate them to other variables, we tested invariance using all six national samples. Table 5.1 exhibits the results of the multi-group CFA including the fit indices for the general sample followed by the four models to test different types of invariance. The overall fit indices for the total sample revealed that the one-factor model achieved a good model fit (CFI and TLI > 0.95, RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The equal form used as baseline model also provided a good fit to the data, suggesting reasonable support for configurational invariance across the groups. Likewise, all indices comparing the further models with the baseline model were under the threshold values recommended by the literature (Chen, 2007, CFI and TLI > −0.01, RMSEA and SRMR < 0.015) with the exception of the CFI concerning scalar invariance (ΔCFI = −0.018) (Marsh, 1994). This means that the PHS revealed acceptable (partial metric) to strong invariance and that it is possible to compare the PHS scores between the national samples. The general hope construct measured with the PHS seemed to be conceptualized in the same way across cultures and was suitable to be examined in relationship to other constructs.

Table 5.1 Multi-group CFA and analysis of group invariance for the perceived hope scale

5.3.5.1.1 Step 1: Descriptive Statistics and Mean Value Comparisons

We continued our analysis by calculating mean values and standard deviations for perceived hope and all well-being and worldview variables (weighted by gender) and compared the values between samples. The statistics in Table 5.2 show similarities and significant differences between samples and first noteworthy findings. We firstly focused our attention on the levels of perceived hope. All values were above the center of the scale (M > 2.5) and there were significant differences between all countries except between the French Swiss and Poland. South Africa had the highest level of perceived hope, followed by Israel, the German Swiss, Germany, and finally Poland and the French speaking Swiss.

Table 5.2 Mean values, standard deviations and analysis of variance by sample

Compared to the other samples, South Africa revealed the highest levels of perceived hope, positive emotions, meaning in life, harmony in life, agency, pathways, self-control and religiosity (p < 0.01), the second highest in life-satisfaction, altruism, benevolence and controllability, and the lowest levels of negative emotions (together with Israel) and randomness (together with Poland) (p < 0.01).

On the other hand, the sample from French speaking Switzerland showed the lowest levels of perceived hope, meaning in life, altruism, pathways, benevolence, justice, luck, and religiosity and at the same time the highest level of self-worth (p < 0.01). This is remarkable, since according to the statistics of the World Bank, Switzerland is the country in our study with the highest GDP per capita (U$S 87,100.-) and South Africa that with the lowest (U$S 5600.-). Furthermore, Switzerland has a very stable political system and social structure, while South Africa struggles with ethnic, social, and political tensions (including economic and social injustice, violence, etc.).

What additionally stands out is the fact, that despite the same national political and economic context and only little structural differences, the results of German and French Switzerland were significantly (and in some domains markedly) distinct in almost all evaluated dimensions. Notably, the French-speaking Swiss showed higher levels of self-worth and self-control and significantly worse results in all other variables, especially in luck, benevolence, and life satisfaction. Furthermore, the German-Swiss sample showed no significant difference with German participants regarding agency, pathways, negative emotions, meaning in life, controllability, and self-worth, but significantly higher levels of perceived hope, life satisfaction, positive emotions, altruism, harmony in life, benevolence, justice, luck, and religiosity (p < 0.01). Germans, on the other hand, had significantly higher levels of self-control and randomness.

Other interesting findings result from comparing South Africa and Israel, the two countries with the highest levels of perceived hope. No significant differences between both countries emerged in life satisfaction, negative emotions, self-worth, and self-control. Whereas South Africans had significantly higher levels of perceived hope, agency, pathways, positive feelings, meaning in life, harmony, justice, controllability, and especially religiosity, the Israeli sample expressed significantly higher levels of altruism (helping others), benevolence, randomness, and luck.

We also examined the results of the two samples with the lowest levels of hope, French Switzerland and Poland. Participants in the Polish sample had the lowest levels of life satisfaction, positive emotions, and self-worth and the second-lowest in agency and luck, and at the same time, the highest values of justice and controllability from all samples in this study. French-Swiss had even lower levels than Polish in pathways, meaning in life, altruism, benevolence, justice, controllability, luck, and religiosity but higher self-worth.

Overall, we found the largest differences between the six samples in the following domains: Luck (the highest in Israel and the lowest in French Switzerland), self-control (the highest in South Africa and Israel and the lowest in German Switzerland), benevolence (the highest in Israel and South Africa and the lowest in French Switzerland), and religiosity (the highest in South Africa and the lowest in Germany and French Switzerland).

To sum up, the results from this first step of analysis bear interesting learnings. Countries with similar economic, political, and social backgrounds like Germany and Switzerland displayed certain commonalities but also significant differences, especially regarding the level of perceived hope and basic beliefs. This is even more pronounced within Switzerland, a country with little economic inequalities (Gini-Index of 33), where people in two culturally distinct regions display huge differences in worldviews, perceived hope, and well-being. Moreover, South Africa and Poland, with lower economic income but both with higher levels of religiosity, display significant differences in hope, well-being, and some basic beliefs. On the other hand, two very dissimilar countries like Israel and South Africa, with many differences regarding their socio-cultural background and some basic beliefs but both facing social struggles and inequalities, display similar high levels of hope. In the next step, we analyzed associations between the variables in an attempt to further understand these similarities and distinctions between the six samples.

5.3.5.1.2 Step 2: Partial Bivariate Correlations

In this second step, we first analyzed the relationships between well-being variables, basic beliefs, and perceived hope and then investigated assessed correlations with perceived hope in each sample. The overall purpose was to identify similar and different correlates with perceived hope in the single samples. For a general overview, in Appendix 5.2 we report the partial correlation coefficients (controlled by demographics) between all variables using the entire database (N = 6548).

For our purposes, we focused our analysis on the correlation coefficients between well-being domains and basic beliefs in relation to perceived hope. Results in Table 5.3 display partial bivariate correlations for each individual sample after controlling for the demographic variables. All correlation coefficients were significant. Results in all samples displayed similar high positive correlation coefficients with perceived hope for life satisfaction, positive emotions, harmony in life, meaning in life, agency, pathways, benevolence, luck, and self-worth (slightly lower). Correlation coefficients with moderate positive associations were observed for helping others, justice, controllability, self-control, and religiosity. Negative emotions and randomness were negatively correlated with perceived hope.

Table 5.3 Partial Pearson’s bivariate correlation coefficients with Perceived Hope by sample

A few interesting differences emerged, noteworthy to be highlighted. In the South African sample, the strength of most of the correlations was the lowest in comparison to the other samples, with the exception of helping others and religiosity. Compared to the other countries, South Africa presented significantly lower correlation coefficients of perceived hope with agency and pathways (p < 0.01), controllability (with the exception of Israel) (p < 0.05) and a higher effect with religiosity (although statistically not significant). People in French-speaking Switzerland, Israel, and Poland exhibited significantly higher correlations between hope and self-control in comparison with German-speaking Swiss and Germans (p < 0.01) and to a lesser extent, with South Africans (n.s.).

Regarding basic assumptions, our results suggested that variables representing a positive external locus of control such as benevolence and luck had a closer association with hope than concepts related to an internal locus of control, i.e., controllability and self-control. Furthermore, the belief in the benevolence of the world and the experience of good fortune in one’s life, seemed to have similar effects as the self-oriented agency and pathways. For a more differentiated analysis, we implemented hierarchical regressions in step 3.

5.3.5.1.3 Step 3: Hierarchical Regression Analyses

The correlation coefficients could be further explained by the results of the hierarchical regression analyses to predict perceived hope, as presented in Table 5.4. For our purpose, we entered the demographic variables in the first step, followed by the subjective well-being domains in the second step, the psychological well-being indicators in the third step, agency and pathways in the next, and all basic belief dimensions in the final step.

Table 5.4 Hierarchical regression analysis with Perceived Hope as dependent variable by sample

The first finding is that the level of perceived hope is only weakly or not at all explained by demographic characteristics. The variables in every further step contributed significantly to explaining the variance of perceived hope. Overall, the entire set of variables explains between 52% (South Africa) and 66% (Poland) of the variance of perceived hope. Remarkably, in all samples, the set of basic beliefs still has a significant effect of around 5% on perceived hope, after subjective and psychological well-being variables, agency, and pathways.

The most striking findings are related to the individual predictors of perceived hope and the patterns emerging from the single samples. In the samples from German and French Switzerland, Germany, and Israel, the highest predictor of perceived hope was pathways (i.e., the individual capacity to overcome difficulties and obstacles) followed by the belief in a benevolent world (and people), positive emotions, and luck. These patterns in contrast with results from the South African sample, where many dimensions had a significant and similar effect on perceived hope: Besides positive emotions, benevolence, and pathways, we found religiosity and meaning in life with standardized beta values above 0.1. Compared to the other countries, South Africa displayed a lower impact of agency and pathways and a stronger effect of religiosity and benevolence on perceived hope (in terms of Δ adj. R²).

The belief in a benevolent world is the only significant predictor of perceived hope in all six samples. Pathways was significant in all countries except in Poland. The impact of positive emotions was significant in all countries but Israel and the highest in Poland. Interestingly, life satisfaction had no significant effect on perceived hope (with exception of the German-Swiss sample with a very low effect). Helping others had a small but significant effect on perceived hope in both Swiss regions, Germany, and South Africa, but not in Israel and Poland. Israel is the only country in which harmony in life had a significant effect on perceived hope and where the effect of luck was stronger than in the other countries. Interestingly, neither Israel nor Poland displayed an effect of religiosity on perceived hope but both countries showed a relatively strong effect for agency.

In sum, there seem to exist some common patterns regarding the roots and features of hope common among the country samples we examined. Hope as perceived by people indeed seems to possess a cognitive, an emotional, and a spiritual dimension as claimed by many authors (Dufault & Martocchio, 1985; Farran et al., 1995), which can be anchored in certain basic beliefs about oneself and the world. The emotional dimension of well-being seems to have a stronger effect on hope than the cognitive dimension of life satisfaction. The confidence in one’s own capacity to overcome difficulties and obstacles (pathways) is more influential than one’s general conviction of achieving goals (agency). The belief in the benevolence of the world and of people is a significant and recurrent predictor of hope. Furthermore, the belief in being a lucky person, religious faith, and the readiness to help other people do also have a significant impact on hope. Neither the belief in the controllability of the world nor the perception of being in control of what happens in one life have a significant effect on hope.

Despite these common features, some noteworthy differences can be identified. The South African sample stands out because of the similar effects on hope of positive emotions, meaning in life, the belief in a benevolent world, pathways, and religiosity. The predictive power of religiosity and helping others on perceived hope were the highest among all samples. South Africa also displayed the highest mean values of religiosity, meaning in life, positive emotions, pathways and perceived hope compared to all other countries. Poland, the country with the second-highest level of religiosity and the second-lowest level of hope in our study, did not reveal a significant effect of religiosity on perceived hope but a strong effect of positive emotions and agency, where it showed relatively low mean levels. In turn, Israel, the country with the second-highest level of hope and the highest levels of belief in luck and self-control, displayed stronger effects of luck, pathways, and agency on hope, besides harmony in life and benevolence.

5.4 Discussion

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the role of basic beliefs about the world and oneself in relation to the perception of hope and to analyze similarities and possible differences between samples from several countries regarding the level and the predictors of hope. According to the definition outlined in Chap. 2, hope rests on the belief of the possibility, although not probability, that a certain desired good can be attained and the trust in the availability of personal or external resources to overcome difficulties and setbacks. Therefore, the question here is, what empowers people to believe that their hopes can become true. What kind of beliefs sustain people’s general hope? Although basic beliefs are based on experiences, they are not that much anchored in facts, but rather in more generalized assumptions about the world and oneself (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). These worldviews are shaped by cultural norms and values, affect how people think, feel and act, how they look towards the future and what kind of wishes, goals and hopes they consider worthwhile to pursue (Nilsson, 2013, 2014). People in different cultures and contexts may sustain their hope from different life domains and attitudes, may hope for similar or different things and act according to their priorities and norms. Some may rely more on their own strengths, others count on the social support of family and friends and yet others may belief in luck, providence or a benevolent higher power. This means that hope could be considered a universal, complex, multifaceted and at the same time cultural and individual phenomenon.

In order to investigate the research question about the role of basic beliefs and culture specific features in the experience of perceived hope, we employed Janoff-Bulman’s (1989) world assumptions about the benevolence of the external world, the meaningfulness of why things happen in life and the image people have of themselves (e.g. self-worth) and supplemented them with the belief about one’s individual capacity to achieve goals (agency) and overcome difficulties (pathways) as defined by Snyder (2002) as well as with the centrality of religious faith. We evaluated whether levels of hope vary across countries and cultures and examined which experiences, attitudes and basic beliefs could be identified as possible determinants of hope. Accordingly, we employed measures to evaluate subjective and psychological well-being and investigated which basic beliefs and assumptions could have an effect on hope beside and beyond these experiences and attitudes.

First, we found that the general experience of hope as measured by the perceived hope scale seems to be conceptualized in a similar way across all investigated samples (Krafft et al., 2019). Consequently, we continued to compare levels of perceived hope and analyzed then the predictors of hope across countries.

The second main finding was that people from Switzerland, Germany, South Africa, Israel and Poland, countries with huge differences in economic wealth and ethnic, historical and social backgrounds, all demonstrated moderately high levels of hope (above the center of the scale). Interestingly, it seemed that levels of hope do not depend on the economic wealth or the social stability of the country. In our study, people in South Africa and in Israel had the highest levels of hope. In another study, South African respondents showed significantly higher perceived hope, higher harmony in life, and higher levels of positive feelings in comparison with Czech participants (Slezackova et al., 2021). Further, people with very similar economic and social conditions but different cultural contexts differed in their levels of hope and well-being, as the results of French and German-speaking Switzerland showed. Furthermore, two countries with significantly higher levels of religiosity, South Africa and Poland, displayed significant differences in hope and well-being. These findings strengthen the assumption that the level of perceived hope is strongly influenced by cultural characteristics and supports the work of Averill et al. (1990) as well as Averill and Sundararajan (2005).

Third, regarding the predictors of hope, the findings from all samples support the notion that basic beliefs have a significant effect on the level of hope, however with diverse magnitude. Across the six samples, some general patterns emerged. Recurrent and most striking predictors of hope were pathways (the belief in one’s ability to overcome difficulties and find many ways to attain a goal), positive emotions, the belief in the benevolence of the world, one’s own agency to achieve goals, the belief of luck in life, and to a lesser but still significant extent, the readiness to help other people as well as religiosity. These seem to be general features or sources of hope with a certain universal character across several countries and highlights the multidimensional, cognitive, emotional and volitional nature of hope as proposed by Dufault and Martocchio (1985) and many others (Farran et al., 1995; Scioli & Biller, 2009).

Beyond these more or less universal features, a number of noteworthy country-specific characteristics emerged. South Africa, the poorest and at the same time, the country with the highest level of perceived hope, stands out with many dimensions having a significant effect on perceived hope. For this South African sample, hope seemed to be very much anchored in positive emotions, social relationships and the willingness to help other people, religious faith and the connection to a higher power and the general belief in the good (see also Slezackova et al., 2021). It was remarkable that religious beliefs and the belief in the good had stronger predictive power on hope than the individualistic and self-centered beliefs in agency and pathways. This suggests that for South Africans, the social dimension and a positive external locus of control appear to be more salient than the individualist internal locus of control, which is in line with Scioli’s comprehensive hope theory (Scioli, 2021) and Tennen et al.’s (2002) emphasis on trust. However, as the results of South Africa and Poland show, higher levels of religiosity on its own may not always sustain higher levels of hope, which suggests that not the magnitude, but the quality and the contents of the religious faith may be important to hope.

It is notable that religiosity predicted perceived hope in Poland before controlling for basic assumptions, which could have mediated the effect of religious faith, explaining why and how Catholic faith fosters hope. We acknowledge that some of Janoff-Bulman’s values could emerge from Christian-European worldview (e.g., benevolence of the world, justice), and those values may apply to the whole contemporary Polish society regardless of religious beliefs. Religiosity of Polish people includes to a larger extent, beliefs about the benevolence and justice of the world/people, and to a lesser extent a transcendent connection with God. It is therefore not so much the connection with a Divine Being but the belief in a benevolent world that gives hope to Poles.

Furthermore, our findings could be also interpreted in the light of the historical and political role played in the past by Catholic church in Poland and macrosocial changes (see also Slezackova, Millova, & Stecz in this volume) which might have contributed to the weakening of spiritual character of religiosity and faith awareness. Religion is practiced because this is rather a national and familiar tradition rather than a deep spiritual experience that reinforces hope and helps to fulfil it (Wadowski, 2019).

The opposite is the case in Israel, the country with the second-highest level of hope. In Israel, at least in our sample, the individualistic agency and pathways were stronger predictors of hope than religious and general beliefs in the good. Furthermore, the individualistic perception of luck and self-worth were significantly related to hope. A similar pattern can be observed in French-speaking Switzerland, the sample with the lowest level of hope, where agency and pathways were stronger predictors than the belief in the good and religious faith. These findings suggest that in these countries, the individualistic, cognitive and internal locus of control are predominant for the perception of hope as maintained by Snyder (2002), but that the individualistic attitude is sometimes not sufficient to foster higher levels of hope.

In sum, the levels of hope are clearly not related to economic wealth nor to social or political stability. South Africa, the country with the lowest GDP and with social turbulences as well as Israel, a country facing violence and aggression for many decades, are those with the highest levels of hope. On the other hand, two regions in Switzerland with the same economic and political environment but with different languages and cultural backgrounds exhibited significant differences in levels of hope and other variables. People in German speaking Switzerland and Germany seem more similar regarding hope than people in two cultural distinct regions within Switzerland. Whereas in a country like South Africa higher levels of (protestant) religiosity can contribute to a higher level of hope and well-being, in the catholic Poland this is not the case. These findings, of course, should be the matter for further research. In Israel and in French speaking Switzerland the individual capacity to overcome difficulties and achieve goals is a stronger determinant of hope, with significantly higher levels in Israel and markedly lower levels in French Switzerland. All in all, the general perception of hope comprises emotional, cognitive and volitional dimensions, which are shaped by basic beliefs with diverse foci in different cultures.

5.5 Limitations

Our study has a number of limitations, which we would like to address. The cross-sectional design of our research does not allow any conclusions about causalities. Although the demographic structures of our samples are largely heterogeneous, they are not representative of the entire population of the single countries. The participants have been recruited via online platforms, which exclude population groups without or with poor internet access. There are huge differences in sample sizes and therefore in the statistical power of the samples across the countries. For this reason, with a small Polish sample size, caution must be applied for interpreting unexpected outcomes regarding the determinants of perceived hope or for making cross-country comparisons.

5.6 Conclusions

Our findings support the notion that cultural norms and basic beliefs have an important effect on hope and that countries and different cultural contexts sustain and perceive hope in different ways. At the same time, there are certain universal elements that foster hope, such as self-confidence, the belief in the good, positive experiences, religious faith, and the willingness to help other people. With regard to psychological theories of hope, our findings imply that it would be misleading to reduce the experience of general hope only to individualistic and cognitive dimensions and to ignore other experiences and elements such as the emotional, the cultural and the spiritual. Our concept of hope has the advantage to incorporate at a general level of abstraction many of these dimensions, and at the same time to address the individual, social and cultural roots and elements of hope. Further research could evaluate if similar patterns emerge in other countries and which cultural characteristics appear in other societies like the Muslim, the Hindu or in more individualistic cultures like the US. In addition, much more research is needed to fully understand specific cultural norms, practices and beliefs in relation to hope.

Appendices

Appendix 5.1: Demographic Structure of the Samples

	German Swiss	French Swiss	Germany	South Africa	Israel	Poland	Total
	N/n	N/n	N/n	N/n	N/n	N/n	N/n
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Total	3306	1308	840	427	477	190	6548
Age (M)	44.89	45.03	50.80	38.87	36.48	44.77	44.67
Age (SD)	26.03	22.96	29.78	14.50	31.86	15.82	25.84
Gender
Male	1458	606	480	130	73	78	2825
	44.1%	46.3%	57.1%	30.4%	15.3%a	41.1%	43.1%
Female	1848	702	360	297	404	112	3723
	55.9%	53.7%	42.9%	69.6%	84.7%	58.9%	56.9%
Marital status
Still living with my parents	345	103	22	82	56	15	623
	10.4%	7.9%	2.6%	19.2%	11.7%	7.9%	9.5%
Single, unmarried	492	174	138	76	106	27	1013
	14.9%	13.3%	16.4%	17.8%	22.2%	14.2%	15.5%
Living in a partnership with separate households	239	99	48	20	35	3	444
	7.2%	7.6%	5.7%	4.7%	7.3%	1.6%	6.8%
Living together in a partnership	601	254	108	40	81	26	1110
	18.2%	19.4%	12.9%	9.4%	17.0%	13.7%	17.0%
Married	1287	473	430	177	171	101	2639
	38.9%	36.2%	51.2%	41.5%	35.8%	53.2%	40.3%
Divorced/separated	278	174	73	23	22	10	580
	8.4%	13.3%	8.7%	5.4%	4.6%	5.3%	8.9%
Widowed	64	31	21	9	6	8	139
	1.9%	2.4%	2.5%	2.1%	1.3%	4.2%	2.1%
Education
Did not finish school	32	13	9	2	2	1	59
	1.1%	1.0%	1.1%	0.5%	0.4%	0.5%	0.9%
Primary school	182	127	31	7		7	354
	5.5%	9.5%	3.7%	1.6%		3.7%	5.4%
Secondary school	289	96	186	78	48	47	744
	8.7%	7.1%	22.1%	18.3%	10.1%	24.7%	11.3%
Professional training/diploma	2188	806	444	50	2	32	3522
	66.2%	60.0%	52.9%	11.7%	0.4%	16.8%	53.5%
Tertiary education/university	615	301	170	290	425	103	1904
	18.6%	22.4%	20.2%	67.9%	89.1%	54.2%	28.9%
Main activity
In education or training	285	110	32	102	191	9	729
	8.6%	8.4%	3.8%	23.9%	40.0%	4.7%	11.1%
Household/raising children	132	59	23	11	5	6	236
	4.0%	4.5%	2.7%	2.6%	1.0%	3.2%	3.6%
Part-time job	663	260	78	29	83	9	1122
	20.1%	19.9%	9.3%	6.8%	17.4%	4.7%	17.1%
Fulltime job	1592	619	480	244	162	117	3214
	48.2%	47.3%	57.1%	57.1%	34.0%	61.6%	49.1%
Unemployed	139	80	27	16	11	12	285
	4.2%	6.1%	3.2%	3.7%	2.3%	6.3%	4.4%
Retired	495	180	200	25	25	37	962
	15.0%	13.8%	23.8%	5.9%	5.2%	19.5%	14.7%
Professional status
No position in an organization	509	252	153	71	55	41	1081
	15.4%	19.3%	18.2%	16.6%	11.5%	21.6%	16.5%
In education/training	236	114	31	97	160	13	651
	7.1%	8.7%	3.7%	22.7%	33.5%	6.8%	9.9%
Employee	1301	579	336	95	141	84	2536
	39.4%	44.3%	40.0%	22.2%	29.6%	44.2%	38.7%
Junior/middle management	725	159	205	76	49	34	1248
	21.9%	12.2%	24.4%	17.8%	10.3%	17.9%	19.1%
Senior management/board of directors	163	54	30	35	21	6	309
	4.9%	4.1%	3.6%	8.2%	4.4%	3.2%	4.7%
Entrepreneur/business owner	372	150	85	53	51	12	723
	11.3%	11.5%	10.1%	12.4%	10.7%	6.3%	11.1%
Religion
Catholic	830	434	198	28	4	145	1639
	25.1%	33.2%	23.6%	6.6%	0.8%	76.3%	25.0%
Protestant	946	208	191	72	0	0	1417
	28.6%	15.9%	22.7%	16.9%	0.0%	0.0%	21.6%
Another Christian church	132	32	13	165	3	2	347
	4.0%	2.4%	1.5%	38.6%	0.6%	1.1%	5.3%
Muslim	65	20	4	11	7	0	107
	2.0%	1.5%	0.5%	2.6%	1.5%	0.0%	1.6%
Jewish	6	5	1	9	160	0	181
	0.2%	0.4%	0.1%	2.1%	33.5%	0.0%	2.8%
Hindu	5	2	2	7	1	0	17
	0.2%	0.2%	0.2%	1.6%	0.2%	0.0%	0.3%
Buddhist	16	2	3	2	3	0	26
	0.5%	0.2%	0.4%	0.5%	0.6%	0.0%	0.4%
I am a spiritual person outside the traditional world religions.	217	107	41	82	94	6	547
	6.6%	8.2%	4.9%	19.2%	19.7%	3.2%	8.4%
Without religion or confession	1034	466	375	31	110	32	2048
	31.3%	35.6%	44.6%	7.3%	23.1%	16.8%	31.3%
Something different	55	32	12	20	95	5	219
	1.7%	2.4%	1.4%	4.7%	19.9%	2.6%	3.3%

Appendix 5.2: Partial Pearson’s Bivariate Correlation Coefficients for the Total Sample N = 6548

	Perceived Hope	Life-satisfaction	Positive emotions	Negative emotions	Meaningin Life	Helping others	Harmony in Life	Agency	Pathways	Bene-volence	Justice	Control	Random-ness	Self-worth	Self-control	Luck
Perceived Hope	1.000
Life-satisfaction	0.597**	1.000
Positive emotions	0.606**	0.702**	1.000
Negative emotions	−0.472**	−0.545**	−0.601**	1.000
Meaning in life	0.510**	0.602**	0.543**	−0.419**	1.000
Helping others	0.289**	0.187**	0.209**	−0.060**	0.225**	1.000
Harmony in life	0.596**	0.788**	0.718**	−0.597**	0.617**	0.217**	1.000
Agency	0.603**	0.641**	0.551**	−0.406**	0.542**	0.209**	0.608**	1.000
Pathways	0.597**	0.512**	0.507**	−0.379**	0.465**	0.237**	0.540**	0.742**	1.000
Benevolence	0.509**	0.463**	0.446**	−0.356**	0.383**	0.270**	0.419**	0.371**	0.352**	1.000
Justice	0.333**	0.339**	0.281**	−0.192**	0.250**	0.165**	0.310**	0.306**	0.275**	0.342**	1.000
Control	0.276**	0.276**	0.235**	−0.162**	0.241**	0.113**	0.287**	0.301**	0.305**	0.219**	0.565**	1.000
Randomness	−0.129**	−0.092**	−0.110**	0.126**	−0.173**	−00.003	−0.098**	−0.093**	−0.071**	−0.091**	−0.076**	−0.064**	1.000
Self-worth	0.399**	0.456**	0.467**	−0.466**	0.432**	0.064**	0.519**	0.463**	0.392**	0.277**	0.078**	0.089**	−0.165**	1.000
Self-control	0.215**	0.227**	0.211**	−0.128**	0.197**	00.020	0.272**	0.306**	0.236**	0.086**	0.256**	0.375**	0.105**	0.192**	1.000
Luck	0.536**	0.604**	0.495**	−0.332**	0.381**	0.201**	0.492**	0.495**	0.424**	0.465**	0.368**	0.314**	0.041**	0.251**	0.216**	1.000
Religiosity	0.221**	0.088**	0.127**	−0.035**	0.223**	0.210**	0.134**	0.113**	0.107**	0.111**	0.118**	0.089**	−0.239**	00.023	0.046**	0.126**

1. Note: **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 level; Control variables: Gender, age, country, marital status, education, main activity, professional status and religion