In a recent study among samples of Czech and South African adults, perceived hope was found to serve as an independent predictor of harmony in life, which is a more holistic and flexible perspective on well-being, emphasizing peaceful acceptance over satisfaction. Furthermore, perceived hope mediated the relationship between positive feelings and harmony in life (Slezackova et al., 2021). While research on perceived hope has been expanding, there is still a need for studies on the dynamics of perceived hope in diverse contexts and cultures.

Hope is closely interconnected with mental health—it is not only a significant predictor, but it is also predicted by various characteristics of mental health. For example, a comparative study explored the psychosocial correlates and predictors of perceived hope among Czech and Maltese adults (Slezackova et al., 2018b). In both samples, a key predictor of perceived hope was dispositional optimism, a characteristic responsible for one's positive outlook on life. However, the predictive capacity of the varying predictors in relation to perceived hope was shown to be culturally dependent: while higher perceived hope was predicted by higher generativity and lower loneliness in the Czech sample, the second independent predictor of perceived hope was found to be spirituality in the Maltese sample.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Depression and Anxiety

Positive and negative emotions reflect the affective component of subjective wellbeing (Lucas & Diener, 2015). Positive emotions are consistently associated with higher levels of well-being, psychological resilience, and better mental and physical health (Le Nguyen & Fredrickson, 2018; Pressman et al., 2019). Experiencing negative emotions in response to daily stressors could have a long-term negative effect on well-being and health (Leger et al., 2018). Evidence suggests that cultural differences may exist in the psychological meanings and value ascribed to positive and negative emotions and feelings (Diener et al., 2017; Tsai et al., 2006; Wirtz et al., 2009). Therefore, we consider it important to explore possible differences in the experience of negative emotions in this study.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Social Relationships and Loneliness

Evidence suggests that poor social relationships have a negative effect on mental health outcomes, such as psychological well-being and psychological distress, including depressive symptoms and anxiety (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001). Perceived emotional and instrumental support and diverse social networks were confirmed to show significant protective effects on depression in the general population (Santini et al., 2015). A better quality of relationships with others was repeatedly associated with higher levels of psychological well-being (Diener et al., 2017; Diener & Seligman, 2002). The importance of social relationships has been confirmed also in relation to dispositional hope (Lopez, 2013) and perceived hope (Krafft et al., 2017; Slezackova, 2017; Slezackova & Krafft, 2016).

Lack of social and intimate relationships can lead to loneliness (Betts & Bicknell, 2011; Cacioppo et al., 2006a). Loneliness has been identified as a key predictor of mental and physical health (Cacioppo et al., 2002) and one of the significant factors increasing the risk of depression among elderly (Golden et al., 2009). Studies show that loneliness also has negative effects on mental health among adolescents and young adults (Goosby et al., 2013; Mahon et al., 2006). Longitudinal studies revealed that loneliness increases the risk of developing depression (Stessman et al., 2013) and exacerbates mental health problems among people who are already depressed (Wang et al., 2018). Moreover, loneliness and depression influence each other, i.e., those who are lonely are more likely to become depressed, and reciprocally, their depression increases their loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2006b). A population-based survey on a representative sample of individuals aged 16 to 102 years described a shallow U-shaped distribution of loneliness, with higher rates of loneliness among young people and the elderly (Lasgaard et al., 2016).

Similar results were found in a recent study that included Czech adults: loneliness was negatively associated with life satisfaction, perceived hope, optimism, and positive relationships. Furthermore, lower loneliness along with higher optimism and generativity predicted higher levels of perceived hope (Slezackova et al., 2018b).

## 7.2 Objectives of the Study

A relatively small body of literature focusing on Czech and Polish cultures identified similarities between Czech and Polish cultures in the framework of Hofstede's model. Although a larger power distance and a more individualistic and short-term orientation were reported in Czechia, those patterns did not vary substantially between Czech and Polish societies (Kolman et al., 2003). Another study based on the Inglehart value change model (Inglehart, 1990) indicated that Czech society estimated work-life and religion as less desirable domains, while leisure time and relationships were considered more important and worthwhile (Swadźba, 2015). Considering all of this evidence for differences between Czech and Polish societies, one may be concerned that these countries may vary in terms of well-being and mental health. However, there is a lack of research investigating possible differences in the domains of psychological well-being and mental health between these two countries. To address this research gap, the present article stemmed from the theory and empirical findings presented and reviewed in the text above and focuses on the influence of hope on negative and positive indicators of mental health. It also examines whether the generation effect interacts with these relationships.

Our research aims were as follows: First, considering the intercultural variability of the structure of hope, the aim of the study was to determine whether the Czech and Polish participants differ in their levels of dispositional and perceived hope. Second, it compares positive and negative indicators of positive mental health, satisfaction with the past year and views on the upcoming year between the studied generations, controlled for cultural background, religious, and spiritual beliefs. The study also investigates whether dispositional and perceived hope are related both to negative and positive mental health indicators (controlled for cultural background). Finally, it examines whether the Czech and Polish participants vary in their predictors of positive mental health.

## 7.3 Method

## 7.3.1 Sample

Participants for online collection of data were recruited through national newspapers, social networks, and announcements on university websites. Participation was completely voluntary and anonymous. The entire sample consisted of 1007 adult persons; of these, 526 (52.2%) participants were from Czechia and 481 (47.8%) were from Poland (Table 7.1). Data was collected during November 2019 in both countries simultaneously. The two samples were comparable with respect to sample size, gender distribution, and parenthood. The Czech participants were slightly older (t = 2.81, df = 945.67, p < 0.01, Glass' Δ = -0.22), with a lower level of education (χ2 = 39.19, df = 2, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.20), more often single (χ2 = 28.76,

Table 7.1 Sample characteristics

df = 5, p < 0.001, Cramer'sV = 0.17), and more often studying (χ2 = 44.77, df = 5, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.21) compared to the Polish participants.

## 7.3.2 Measures

Age groups: In alignment with the socio-historical background of Czechia and Poland, we divided both samples into three age groups. New generation = 18 to 29 years (people born after macrosocial changes in the 1990s in Czechia and Poland); transition generation = 30 to 50 years (people born during the totalitarian regime in both countries but growing up after macrosocial changes); and the oldest generation = 51+ years (people living most of their lives during the totalitarian regime).

Religiosity-Spirituality: We identified three groups according to religious affiliation: Christians = persons affiliated with Catholic, Protestant, or other Christian churches; spiritual but not religious = spiritually grounded persons who do not profess any traditional world religion; and atheists = people without religion or belief.

Perceived hope: The Perceived Hope Scale (PHS; Krafft et al., 2017; Czech version Slezackova et al., 2020; Polish version was translated for this study) consists of six items rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly disagree;5 = strongly agree). The scale measures the self-reported level of perceived hope.

Dispositional hope: The Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (ADHS; Snyder et al., 1991; Czech version Ocisková et al., 2016; Polish version Łaguna et al., 2005) consists of 12 items. In this study we used 6-point Likert-type scale (0 = strongly disagree;5 = strongly agree). The scale measures a cognitive model of hope comprised of two dimensions: agency (goal-directed energy; measured by four items) and pathways (planning to meet goals; measured by four items). Four items (distractors) are not included in the total score.

Depression and anxiety: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4; Kroenke et al., 2009; Czech and Polish translations were created for this study) is a brief, 4-item scale to measure depression and anxiety. Items are rated on a 4-point Likerttype scale in which participants indicate how often they experience a certain situation or state (0 = not at all;3 = nearly every day).

Positive mental health: The Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF; Keyes, 2005; Czech version Singh et al., 2016; Polish version Karaś et al., 2014) measures the emotional, psychological and social aspects of subjective well-being. It allows the identification of the presence and absence of mental health. In the tool, 14 items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale in which participants indicate how often they experience a certain situation or state (1 = never;6 = every day).

Loneliness: The Loneliness Scale from The National Institute of Health Adult Toolbox Social Relationship Scales (Cyranowski et al., 2013; Czech and Polish translations were created for this study) assesses the level of loneliness in five items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never;5 = always).

Life satisfaction in the past year: Life satisfaction in the year 2019 was assessed in five life domains: personal life, national politics, national economy, current social issues, and climate and environment. They were measured by a single item for each life domain rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfied;5 = very satisfied).

Expectations for the upcoming year: The expectations for the upcoming year 2020 were assessed in the same five domains of life: private life, national politics, national economy, current social issues, and climate and environment. They were measured by a single item for each life domain rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very pessimistic;5 = very optimistic).

## 7.3.3 Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses, correlation and regression analyses, and group comparisons were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics. The internal consistencies of all scales were assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and the scale distribution was assessed by skewness and kurtosis. Since the scales measuring life satisfaction in various life domains in the current year and expectations for the upcoming year consisted of a single item each, their levels of internal consistency were not computed. Differences in the studied variables according to age group or religiosity and country were tested by factorial ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests. The significance of the differences of correlation coefficients was compared between Czech and Polish samples according to Eid et al. (2011). Predictors of mental health were assessed using regression analysis for each sample separately. Since some of the were slightly skewed, analyses including these variables were checked against nonparametric versions (where applicable). The results of the nonparametric analyses are only reported in cases when their results differed from those of the parametric analyses.

## 7.4 Results

## 7.4.1 Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 7.2. Since the values of skewness indicated positive skewness in Depression/anxiety and Loneliness in the Czech sample and negative skewness in Life satisfaction in personal life and Expectations for personal life in both samples, the analyses including these variables were crosschecked with nonparametric versions of the used tests. Reliability analysis revealed acceptable values of internal consistency coefficients for all studied scales.

## 7.4.2 Comparison of Czech and Polish Samples in General

In addition to the differences in demographic characteristics between the Czech and Polish samples described in the Sample section, other studied characteristics were also included in the analysis. In life satisfaction in the past year, significant differences were found in the national economy and social issues: the Czech participants were more satisfied in both areas compared to the Polish sample (national economics: t = 5.62, df = 933.28, p < 0.001, Glass' Δ = -0.36; social issues: t = 5.50, df = 989.22, p < 0.001, Glass' Δ = -0.34). Participants in both countries were similarly satisfied in the other three domains (personal life, national politics, and climate and environment).

In life expectations for the upcoming year, the Czech participants were more optimistic about national politics (t = 3.36, df = 1005, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = - 0.21), national economy (t = 4.47, df = 971.32, p < 0.001, Glass' Δ = -0.28), social issues (t = 5.58, df = 970.62, p < 0.001, Glass' Δ = -0.34), and climate and environment problems (t = 3.31, df = 1005, p < 0.001, Cohen'sd = -0.21) than the Polish participants. They did not differ only in expectations in personal life.

The Czech and Polish participants differed in perceived and dispositional hope, positive mental health, depression and anxiety, and loneliness: the Czech respondents reported higher perceived hope (t = 2.99, df = 1005, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = - 0.19) and positive mental health (t = 2.81, df = 962.19, p < 0.01, Glass' Δ = - 0.15). In contrast, the Polish participants scored higher in dispositional hope measure

(t = 2.13, df = 1005, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = -0.13), depression and anxiety (t = 4.03, df = 1005, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -0.25), and loneliness (t = 7.13; df = 961.92; p < 0.001, Glass' Δ = -0.48).

## 7.4.3 Comparison of Czech (CZ) and Polish (PL) Samples According to Age Groups

As reported above, the participants were divided into three age groups: the new generation (18–29 years old; NCZ = 282, NPL = 246), the transition generation (30–50 years old; NCZ = 154, NPL = 246) and the oldest generation (51 years old and older; NCZ = 90, NPL = 42). Although the size of the new generation was similar in both samples, the transition generation group was slightly larger in the Polish sample and the oldest generation group was slightly larger in the Czech sample (χ2 = 22.33, df = 2, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.15).

The results of 2 × 3 (country × age group) factorial ANOVA showed that neither country nor age group had a significant effect on satisfaction with personal life. However, there was a significant interaction effect (F(2, 1005) = 3.19, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.005), with the Polish transition generation scoring higher and the oldest generation scoring lower in satisfaction with personal life compared to the Czech groups. No effects (main or interaction) were found among the Czech and Polish age groups in satisfaction with national politics. Czech participants had higher satisfaction with the national economy and satisfaction with social issues (national politics: F(1, 1006) = 11.62, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.010; social issues: F(1, 1006) = 10.69, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.009). Finally, in satisfaction with climate and environment, Czech participants in general scored higher (F(1, 1006) = 4.03, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.005) and young people from the new generation scored lower (F(2, 1005) = 8.91, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.008). A significant interaction effect was also observed, indicating that Czech participants from the transition and oldest generations scored higher compared to the Polish sample (F(2, 1005) = 5.31, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.005).

Factorial ANOVA revealed several significant results in expectations for the upcoming year; however, in the case of expectations for personal life, only a significant main effect of the age group (F(2, 1005) = 4.80, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.008) with the oldest generation scoring significantly lower compared to the transition generation. No significant main effect was observed for the country or interaction effect (country x age group). In expectations for national politics, social issues, and climate and environment, Czech participants were more optimistic than Polish participants (politics: F(1, 1006) = 5.36, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.005; social issues: F(1, 1006) = 16.40, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.016; climate and environment: F(1, 1006) = 6.41, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.006). No significant results were observed for different age groups or for the interaction effect of the country x age group. On the contrary, for expectations for national economy, the results of factorial ANOVA indicate that the country had a significant main effect (Czech participants scored higher than Polish participants: F(1, 1006) = 8.79, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.009) as did the age group (the youngest group scored lower than the two older groups: F(2, 1005) = 3.26, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.007). However, similarly to previous expectations, we did not find any significant interaction effect of the country and age group.

In perceived hope, the country was found to have significant main effects (Czechs scored higher than Poles: F(1, 1006) = 7.42, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.007) as did the age group (new generation had the lowest and the oldest generation had the highest level of perceived hope: F(2, 1005) = 20.01, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.038); however, no significant interaction effect was observed. Regarding dispositional hope, the results showed that members of the transition generation scored higher than members of the new or oldest generation (F(2, 1005) = 11.27, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.022). The country did not demonstrate any significant main effect or any interaction effect. Loneliness was higher in the Polish sample (F(1, 1006) = 42.38, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.041) and in young people from new generation (F(2, 1005) = 21.14, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.041). However, neither country nor age group demonstrated any significant interaction effect. Similarly, the level of depression and anxiety was higher in Polish participants (F(1, 1006) = 21.51, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.021) and the youngest in the new generation group. The results of the factorial ANOVA also showed a significant interaction effect: members of Polish oldest generation had a higher level of depression and anxiety than their Czech counterparts (F(2, 1005) = 2.93, p = 0.05, ηp 2= 0.006). On the other hand, positive mental health was higher in the Czech sample (F(1, 1006) = 8.08, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.008) and in participants from transition and the oldest generation (F(2, 1005) = 8.33, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.016). No significant interaction effect was observed for the country x age group.

## 7.4.4 Comparison of Czech and Polish Samples According to Religiosity and Spirituality

Participants were divided into three groups with regard to religiosity and spirituality: Christians (NCZ = 151, NPL = 323), spiritual but not religious (NCZ = 155, NPL = 50), and atheists (NCZ = 134, NPL = 96). The Chi-square test revealed significant differences in religiosity: There were more Christians and less 'spiritual but not religious' participants in the Polish sample compared to the Czech sample (χ2 = 121.67, df = 2, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.37).

The results of 2 × 3 (country × religiosity-spirituality) factorial ANOVA in satisfaction with personal life did not indicate that the country had any significant main effect or interaction effect; however, a significant main effect was observed for religiosity: Christians were more satisfied with their personal life than atheists (F(2, 1005) = 3.04, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.007). On the other hand, country and religiosity demonstrated significant main effects in satisfaction with national politics (higher in the Czech sample: F(1, 1006) = 5.78, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.006; higher in Christians compared to atheists: F(2, 1005) = 5.67, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.012); in addition, a significant interaction effect was found (country x religiosity) indicating that Czech atheists scored higher than Polish atheists (F(2, 1005) = 15.86, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.034).

Czech participants were more satisfied with the national economy, social issues and climate and environment compared to Polish participants (economy: F(1, 1006) = 32.76, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.035; social issues: F(1, 1006) = 34.41, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.037; environment: F(1, 1006) = 5.54, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.006) and Czech atheists also obtained higher scores than Polish atheists (economy: F(2, 1005) = 3.52, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.008; social issues: F(2, 1005) = 12.13, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.026; environment: F(2, 1005) = 9.24, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.020). Furthermore, in general, Christians were more satisfied with social issues than atheists (F(2, 1005) = 8.10, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.018). No significant main effect was observed between religiosity-spirituality groups in general and satisfaction with national economy, environment, and climate.

Factorial ANOVA also revealed several significant results in the expectations for the upcoming year: the Czech participants were more optimistic about national politics and national economy than Polish participants (politics: F(1, 1006) = 15.06, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.016; economy: F(1, 1006) = 18.03, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.020), as well as Christians compared to atheists (in politics: F(2, 1005) = 11.59, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.025) or spiritual but not religious compared to atheists (in economy: F(2, 1005) = 4.05, p < 0.05, ηp 2= 0.009).  Similarly, in the area of expectations for social issues and climate and environment, the Czech sample scored higher than the Polish sample (social issues: F(1, 1006) = 28.85, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.031; environment: F(1, 1006) = 15.36, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.017), and atheists scored lower than both the Christian and the spiritual but not religious group (social issues: F(2, 1005) = 17.14, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.037; environment: F(2, 1005) = 6.48, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.014). In line with previous areas of expectations, Czech atheists showed more optimistic expectations in these areas compared to Polish atheists (social issues: F(2, 1005) = 6.71, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.015; environment: F(2, 1005) = 8.83, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.019). On the contrary, in expectations for personal life, the analysis revealed neither any significant main effects (country, religiosity-spirituality) nor any interaction effect (country x religiosity-spirituality).

Regarding differences in perceived hope in the context of country and religiosityspirituality, the results of factorial ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the country (higher in Czechia: F(1, 1006) = 15.90, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.017) and religiosity (lower in atheists: F(2, 1005) = 19.03, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.040) but without significant interaction effect. In dispositional hope, loneliness and depression and anxiety, only the main effect of the country was significant (all characteristics were higher in Poland; dispositional hope: F(1, 1006) = 7.20, p < 0.01, ηp 2= 0.008; loneliness: F(1, 1006) = 40.51, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.043; negative emotivity: F(1, 1006) = 14.91, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.016). On the other hand, positive mental health was higher among Czech participants (F(1, 1006) = 11.91, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.013), the Christian and the spiritual but not religious groups (compared to atheists; F(2, 1005) = 7.64, p < 0.001, ηp 2= 0.017). No significant interaction effect was found for any of the variables.

## 7.4.5 Relationships Between Hope, Loneliness, Negative Emotivity, and Mental Health in Czech and Polish Samples

The next stage of our analysis examines the variables relationships between the studied variables in the Czech and Polish samples using correlation analysis (Table 7.3). Since we wanted to compare both samples, correlation analyses were run for the Czech and Polish samples separately. The results for the Czech sample are reported below the diagonal line, and the results for the Polish sample above the diagonal line.

The results of the correlation analysis revealed very similar patterns of relationships between variables in both samples. A comparison of the correlation coefficients between the Czech and Polish samples showed only a single significant difference; a stronger correlation was observed between depression/anxiety and positive mental health in the Polish sample (rCZ = -0.52, rPL = -0.59, p < 0.001; Fischer z = 1.60; p = .05; Cohen q = 0.10).

To test whether perceived hope, dispositional hope, loneliness, and depression/ anxiety would predict mental health differently in the Czech and Polish samples, we conducted a regression analysis for each sample separately. The results are shown in Table 7.4.

The two national samples demonstrate very similar structures regarding the predictors of positive mental health: While perceived hope and dispositional hope positively predicted mental health, depression/anxiety and loneliness negatively

Table 7.3 Correlations between measures of hope, loneliness, depression and anxiety and positive mental health in the Czech and Polish samples (nCZ = 526; nPL = 481)

Note: \*\*\* p < 0.001, \*\* p < 0.01, \* p < 0.05 after applying Bonferroni correction for familywise Type I error

Results for the Czech sample are displayed below the diagonal; those for the Polish sample are displayed above the diagonal

Table 7.4 Results of regression of positive mental health in the Czech and Polish samples

Note: \* p < 0.05, \*\* p < 0.01, \*\*\* p < 0.001

CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit

predicted mental health. The only difference between the samples was in the level of depression and anxiety: although it was a significant negative predictor in both samples, the effect was much stronger in the Polish sample than in the Czech sample.

## 7.5 Discussion

The present study compares various aspects of psychosocial functioning (i.e. satisfaction with different life domains in the past year and expectations in these domains for the upcoming year) demonstrated by groups from the Czech and Polish populations. It also looks at the differences between them in the levels of various concepts of hope (dispositional and perceived) and indicators of positive mental health. To account for the macrosocial framework, it explores these differences between different age groups: each group represents people with different life experiences in societies that underwent major macrosocial transition in the last couple of decades. These differences were controlled not only for cultural background or age, but also for religious and spiritual beliefs. Finally, it reveals the structure of the relationships between dispositional and perceived hope and positive mental health indicators in the Czech and Polish groups separately.

## 7.5.1 Satisfaction with the Past Year and Expectations for the Upcoming Year

Firstly, the study focused on the general cultural differences in satisfaction with the past year. The results showed that both Czech and Polish respondents were highly satisfied with their personal life, in addition, both samples were equally satisfied with the national politics, climate and environmental issues. However, the Czech respondents were significantly more satisfied with their national economy and social issues in the past year than the Polish participants. This might be explained by the economic and macrosocial differences between the two countries. Recent estimations conducted by Bertelsmann Stiftung (Sustainable Governance Indicators, 2020) suggest that political trust in Poland has declined rapidly between 2014 and 2020 due to the downfall in quality of democratic governance, which has been placed in the bottom rank in the EU. Another possible explanation may be that Czechia has better economic indicators, such as unemployment rate, inflation, or GDP per inhabitant, and better overall quality of life than Poland (Eurostat, 2021a, 2021b). Our findings indicating stronger dissatisfaction with politics and more pessimistic expectations towards the future in the Polish sample suggest that the current socio-political transformations could be vital agents of prospective hope.

Satisfaction with the past year might also affect expectations for the future. Both the Czech and Polish participants were equally highly optimistic about their personal lives for the upcoming year. Similar results regarding the transmission of optimistic or pessimistic expectations towards the future were obtained in a recent study by Slezackova et al. (2018b), who note that Czech adult respondents were most satisfied with their personal life in the past year and, at the same time, they were most optimistic about the same domain for the forthcoming year. These findings are also in line with the results obtained in previous studies on larger samples of Swiss and German respondents (Krafft & Walker, 2018b). This could be explained either by the effect of the optimistic bias, which postulates that people tend to believe that their future will be better than the future of others (Weinstein, 1980), or it can be also related to the fact that people tend to show higher perceived control over their personal life than over the broader circumstances such as politics, economy, and social issues.

Secondly, the study examined the general cultural differences and similarities regarding expectations for the next year. Our findings indicate that both the Czech and Polish groups shared a generally low level of optimism about their national politics. This appears to be related to a shared perceived lack of trust in political leaders and public institutions, which seems to be common in many post-communist countries (Eurostat, 2020). The higher social economic and political expectations towards the future observed in the Czech sample could be better understood when comparing our results to the recent data (Sustainable Governance Indicators, 2020): they show that Czechia scores generally better in democracy quality (civil rights, access to information, rule of law, electoral process) compared to Poland. Low community-related expectations towards the future in Poland could also be attributed to the intensification of social polarization by populist right-wing movements and the Catholic church through anti-abortion discourse or stigmatization policies, i.e., introducing 'LGBT-free' zones or anti-gender campaigns (Koralewska & Zielińska, 2021; Korolczuk, 2020).

## 7.5.2 Cultural Differences in the Positive and Negative Indicators of Mental Health

Further analyses revealed significant differences between the Czech and Polish participants in the positive and negative indicators of mental health: The Czech group showed higher levels of perceived hope and positive mental health, and lower levels of dispositional hope, negative emotivity and loneliness than Poles. This is to some extent congruent with the findings of Slezackova et al. (2018b), which revealed that Czech adult respondents scored significantly higher in perceived hope, optimism, life satisfaction, and perceived importance of spirituality compared to participants from other countries (i.e. Malta). These results can also be supported by the World Happiness Report 2019, which showed that Czechia (the 20th happiest country out of 156 countries) was higher in the happiness ranking of happiness than Poland (the 40th happiest country). Both countries showed similar values for positive affect, however, Poland reported higher values for negative affect (Helliwell et al., 2019).

In general, the Czech group showed higher levels of positive characteristics, apart from dispositional hope, which was higher among the Polish group, together with greater loneliness and negative emotivity. Although this result may seem paradoxical at first glance, growing evidence from research studying dispositional and perceived hope has suggested that the two may form different relationships with other positive and negative characteristics, such as life satisfaction, self-efficacy, resilience, happiness, optimism, gratitude or depression and anxiety (Krafft et al., 2017, 2021; Krafft & Walker, 2018a; Slezackova et al., 2020; Slezackova & Krafft, 2016). The overall comparison shows that while Snyder's concept of dispositional hope is rather self-concerned and it is very close to the construct of self-efficacy, with an emphasis on personal control and active involvement in problem-solving, perceived hope emphasizes the emotional, social, and spiritual aspects of hope in the sense of self-transcendence (Krafft & Walker, 2018b; Slezackova, 2017).

## 7.5.3 Generational Differences in Psychosocial Functioning

The study also compared studied characteristics according to three age groups, which were formed according to the specific macrosocial context in Czechia and Poland: a new generation born after macrosocial transitions, a transition generation born in a totalitarian regime but growing up in democratic society, and the oldest generation born in a totalitarian regime and living most of their lives in this regime. These age groups also reflect different parts of adulthood—young adulthood, middle to older adulthood, and old age. The findings show relatively consistently that the youngest group reported more negative characteristics: low satisfaction with climate and environment, pessimistic expectations for the national economy, low levels of perceived hope and positive mental health, and high levels of loneliness, anxiety, and depression. These results are in line with several previous studies indicating that older adults report higher well-being, life satisfaction, and more positive views toward the future than their younger counterparts (e.g., Carstensen et al., 2011; Chopik et al., 2020; Chowdhury et al., 2014). One of the possible explanations is brought by socioemotional selectivity theory suggesting that people tend to select emotionally more relevant and satisfying goals as they grow older (Carstensen et al., 1999). Similarly, growing research on dispositional and perceived hope suggests that both types tend to increase even in old age (Krafft & Walker, 2018b; Perrig-Chiello et al., 2018; Slezackova et al., 2020; Slezackova et al., 2018b).

These findings suggest that age differences could be assigned to general developmental trends throughout life. In terms of the macrosocial context, our results show that the Czech and Polish samples differed in many studied domains mentioned in the text above. Although they share many common areas in terms of modern social development, especially in the second half of the twentieth century, i.e., several decades of a totalitarian regime followed by its disintegration in the late 1980s and transformation into a democratic society, in both cases, their functioning is also influenced by current macrosocial characteristics which are also reflected in their individual functioning, as suggested by Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).

It is possible that macrosocial factors, such as the current political and economic situation mentioned in the text above, could have a significant influence on these results. Therefore, an analysis was performed on the three age groups in Czechia and Poland separately. However, only a few differences were found in a couple of areas (satisfaction with personal life, satisfaction with climate and environment, and negative emotivity), and these differences did not follow any specific trend. The patterns of the results suggest that either country or age has a general significance, without any interaction effect: The studied characteristics may be influenced by the country where a person lives, but they tend to increase or decrease in a similar way during the lifespan.

## 7.5.4 Cultural Differences in the Context of Religiosity and Spirituality

The differences in religiosity and spirituality observed between the Czech and Polish samples are similar to those observed elsewhere and reflect the religious specificity of those two countries (IndexMundi, 2011, 2017). Therefore, the study examined the predictive value of religiosity and spirituality for three characteristics: positive expectations for the upcoming year, satisfaction with the past year in different life domains, and positive mental health. Our findings suggest that religious participants were more satisfied with politics and social issues, and that atheists tended to report lower satisfaction with economy and social issues. Similarly, religiousness was found to have a positive association with expectations for the next year in politics. It is possible, therefore, that religious individuals are generally more satisfied with different life domains and can share more positive expectations towards certain domains of the proximal future. This should be explained with caution: Religious engagement is associated with conservative attitudes and is known to determine the political involvement of citizens. However, a recent Polish study did not indicate any straightforward connection between being religious and developing populist attitudes favored by the government or Catholic Church (Turska-Kawa & Wojtasik, 2020). Rather, it suggests that our present findings linking religiousness with positive expectations towards the future in the political domain could not be explained only by identification with nationalist-conservative state policy. Religiousness could also be interpreted as a factor including various norms, values, and beliefs producing more optimistic expectations towards different aspects of the future.

Our results also show that both the Christian group and those considering themselves spiritual scored higher in different aspects of well-being, suggesting that these groups report better mental health. Religion and spirituality could be defined both as an idiosyncratic system allowing the search for meaning and one related to the self, other people, the universe and the sacred. Previous research has suggested many possible pathways to explain this effect, including the positive influence of religion and spirituality on the ability to cope with stressful life events, the promotion of positive emotions, and the facilitation of hope and a sense of meaning (Abu-Raiya & Pargament, 2015; Krok, 2009). Regarding the relationship between religiousness and negative indicators of mental health, Krok (2014) found little evidence that religious orientation is negatively associated with somatic symptoms but not with other mental health problems (anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction, depression). This suggests that both religion and spirituality appear to have a moderate positive impact on positive mental health and a rather weak effect on negative indicators of mental health.

Regardless of cultural background, the religious participants displayed higher levels of perceived hope, suggesting that religion may act as an important source of perceived hope; however, the Czech participants reported a higher level of perceived hope, despite being a nonreligious country. These results may indicate that there might be cultural differences between Czechia and Poland regarding the variability of sources of perceived hope. This research problem remains unsolved and could be studied in further Hope Barometer studies. It should also be noted that any generalizations on how cultural differences correspond to the structure of hope based on our present findings should be made with caution, particularly considering the convenience sampling method employed and cultural diversity of each studied country.

## 7.5.5 Relationships Between Hope, Loneliness, Negative Emotivity, and Mental Health in a Cultural Context

In addition to the expected strong positive correlations between perceived hope, dispositional hope and positive mental health, significant negative relationships were observed between the two concepts of hope, depression and anxiety, and loneliness. These results revealed very similar patterns of relationships in both national samples. A similar structure was found for the predictors of positive mental health: While perceived hope and dispositional hope positively predicted mental health, negative emotivity and loneliness negatively predicted mental health. The only difference between the groups was in depression and anxiety: Although it served as an independent negative predictor in both samples, the effect was much stronger in the Polish sample than in the Czech sample. From the macrosocial point of view, it is not surprising that the structure of relationships in Czech and Polish samples is similar: even though the level of psychosocial characteristics per se can be influenced by macrosocial characteristics (for further discussion see Silbereisen & Chen, 2010), the structure of the relationship is generally quite constant, regardless of the country and macrosocial situation.

Our empirically confirmed observations establishing similarities between Czech and Polish samples can also enrich the understanding of national autostereotypes, heterostereotypes and their relevance with real personality traits of people in Central Europe. Hřebíčková and Graf (2014) determined that the Polish national autostereotype is similar both to that of Czech and to self-reporting ratings; however, Polish respondents have considered themselves slightly more anxious and depressive than Czechs (in line with our results). In contrast, national heterostereotypes were not consistent with real personality traits, suggesting that cross-cultural comparisons can sometimes overrate differences between countries due to the individual's tendency to achieve a sense of distinct social identity.

Our findings are to some extent in line with previous studies, which found perceived hope to be significantly positively related with life satisfaction and negatively with loneliness (Slezackova et al., 2018b). It was also found that perceived hope predicted most of the variance in psychological well-being operationalized as harmony in life, and, furthermore, perceived hope mediated the relationship between positive feelings and harmony in life (Slezackova et al., 2021).

## 7.6 Limitations and Perspectives on Future Research

The main limitation of our study consists in the cross-sectional design and the use of convenience sampling, resulting in nonrepresentative samples and slightly uneven demographic data distribution in each of the research samples. Further bias might have been caused by factors such as self-presentation and lack of introspection.

A longitudinal study would shed more light on a deeper understanding of the investigated variables and the dynamics of the relations between them. Interesting results about the dynamics between current life satisfaction, short-term future expectations, and experiencing different aspects of hope (cognitions on capability to pursue goals, belief in self and others, sensing hope or positive general expectations towards future) could be delivered using a repeated-measures design or crosssectional comparisons from the past Hope Barometer waves with the forthcoming data collection. We acknowledge that our findings are preliminary: further crossnational comparisons with more countries involved and waves of data collection might contribute to better understanding of the role played by current sociopolitical changes (including COVID pandemic) in experiencing hope and positive mental health.

## 7.7 Conclusion

The present study contributes to the discussion about the complexity of the relationships between life satisfaction, future expectations, positive mental health, negative emotivity and different manifestations of hope in the Czech and Polish populations. The findings are discussed in the context of intergenerational differences, the cultural, religious, and spiritual diversity of Poland and Czechia, and the framework of macrosocial changes in Central Europe.

The experience of hope is implicitly reflected in life satisfaction over the past year and the expectations for the upcoming year. Satisfaction with the past year and optimism related to different aspects of life in the upcoming year varied between the Czech and Polish samples; however, the two groups demonstrated similar contentment and positive expectations towards their personal life. Lower satisfaction with national politics and environment could be attributed to psychological factors, such as low sense of control in areas of life they are not personally involved, or to social factors, i.e., the context of macrosocial changes in this region. Our results support previous findings that indicate the transmission of negative or positive satisfaction with the proximal past to reflections on the near future.

Our findings highlight the differences in positive and negative indicators of mental health between the Czech and Polish populations. It is possible that the lower perceived hope observed among Polish participants could be explained by higher indices of loneliness, anxiety and depression in this group. Among atheists, the Czech group demonstrated higher perceived hope than its Polish counterparts, suggesting that the religiosity-spirituality domain does not solely explain the variability of hope in its transcendental aspects. We conclude that this issue should be discussed with respect to the different trajectories of transformations that Polish and Czech society underwent, particularly concerning religious beliefs. Furthermore, our findings seem to reveal that the Polish sample may experience hope differently, associating it with optimistic beliefs about self and the capability to set futureoriented goals.

Despite the non-experimental design of the study, our findings may also suggest that growing older is associated with becoming happier, more hopeful, less depressed and lonely; however, in both samples, the young generation also appeared to display difficulties in developing a complete state of mental health, as manifested by lower indices of hope and well-being, or more negative emotivity symptoms. Therefore, policies aimed at boosting positive mental health should acknowledge that particularly young adults suffer from insufficiencies regarding their trust in themselves and other people, goal-oriented motivation, self-efficacy, emotional experience of hope or psychological well-being, making this subpopulation more vulnerable to macrosocial changes. The young generation is a potential target population for implementing preventive mental health interventions, focusing on negative indicators of mental health, such as depression and anxiety.

## References

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 58(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/ cap0000063

GLOBALIFE-project. In R. K. Silbereisen & X. Chen (Eds.), Social change and human development: Concept and results (pp. 101–124). Sage.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton University Press.

Hope for a good life. Results of the Hope-barometer international research program (pp. 21–61). Springer.

& A. M. Walker (Eds.), Hope for a good life. Results of the Hope-Barometer international research program (pp. 165–197). Springer.

Alena Slezackova, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology and a Vice Head of the Dept. of Medical Psychology and Psychosomatics, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, in Brno, Czech Republic. Her scientific interests include mainly hope, mental health, and well-being. She also has a special interest in the research and practice of mindfulness. Alena is a founder and director of the Czech Positive Psychology Centre (CPPC), a member of the Advisory Council of the International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA), and a member of the Executive Board of the European Network for Positive Psychology (ENPP). She has been a member of several international research projects, and she serves on the editorial boards of five academic psychological journals. Alena is the author of the first comprehensive monograph on positive psychology in the Czech language and dozens of scientific publications in positive psychology and health psychology.

Patryk Stecz, a psychologist, is an assistant professor at the Institute of Psychology, University of Lodz, Poland. From 2014–2017 and 2021–2025, he was elected to the Executive Board of the Polish Suicidology Association. Dr Stecz completed his Ph.D. at the Medical University of Lodz. He published approx. 40 scientific works related to applied clinical psychology (attitudes towards suicide, positive suicidology, religious coping, well-being predictors in clinical and non-clinical populations, risk behavior in students with visual impairment, studies on hope). Dr Stecz has been serving psychological support at the Academic Counseling Centre (Technical University of Lodz) for students and employees with disabilities and special needs since 2008. Dr Stecz was aged 31 when he received the Medical University Rector's Scientific Award. Currently he is finishing a four-year post-graduate Clinical Psychology Specialization Program (Center of Postgraduate Medical Education).

Katarina Millova, Ph.D. (born in 1983) attended Masaryk University (Brno, Czech Republic), where she earned her M.A. (2006) and Ph.D. (2012) degree in psychology. She worked as a research associate at the Institute of Psychology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, where she focused on longitudinal research. At Masaryk University, where she worked as an assistant professor, she taught courses on developmental psychology and psychology of personality. Currently she works as assistant professor at the University of Ostrava. In her research, she focuses on successful development in general, lifespan psychology, and adult development, especially on established adulthood and quarter-life crisis.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Chapter 8 Hope and Flourishing: A Cross-Cultural Examination Between Spanish and South African Samples

Valle Flores-Lucas, Raquel Martínez-Sinovas, Raúl López-Benítez, and Tharina Guse

Abstract This chapter explores the commonalities and differences in hope between Spanish (N = 206) and South African (N = 100) samples based on data collected with the Hope Barometer in November 2018. Furthermore, we investigate similarities and differences in the sources of hope between the two samples, as reflected in the activities that people engage in to fulfil their hopes and to attain the hoped-for targets (hope activities). Finally, we examine these activities as predictors of hope. Since hope is an important predictor of flourishing, we also analyze the predictive power of hope and its dimensions on flourishing in both samples, using two different measures and conceptualizations of hope (perceived hope and dispositional hope). Finally, we explore the role of sociodemographic indicators as predictors of hope and flourishing. Our results indicated that South African participants had higher levels of hope than the Spanish sample. We also found differences and commonalities in terms of endorsement of specific hope activities. The results indicated that perceived hope was a strong predictor of flourishing in both samples, supporting the idea that perceived hope may be a universal motivational need applicable across cultures. These findings highlight the need to carry out more cross-cultural studies on hope and paves the way for further cross-cultural understanding of this important human resource.

V. Flores-Lucas (✉) · R. López-Benítez

Department of Psychology, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
R. Martínez-Sinovas Department of Health Sciences (Psychological Area), European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid, Spain

T. Guse Department of Psychology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

## 8.1 Introduction

With the expansion of the field of positive psychology, there is increasing interest in the role of cultural variables in positive psychological functioning. Evidence suggests that western conceptualizations of positive psychology constructs may differ from those in non-Western contexts (Oishi & Gilbert, 2016). However, most studies have focused on differences between western and eastern cultures, and less is known about similarities and differences among western and other contexts, such as African contexts. This chapter reports on hope and flourishing among South African and Spanish adults, and examines correlates and mechanisms of these constructs, taking socio-demographic variables into account.

Research examining the applicability of positive psychological constructs from western cultures to other cultures, such as eastern cultures, are expanding. Specifically, the role of cultural differences in the relationships between constructs such as flourishing, well-being, hope, emotions, forgiveness, etc., are gaining attention. Diverse studies reported cultural differences in the assessments or perceived relevance of some of the main constructs of positive psychology like flourishing (Wȩziak-Białowolska et al., 2019), hope, life satisfaction, positive affect, and emotions (An et al., 2017; Hutz et al., 2014). Furthermore, cross-cultural research is also focussing on the possible effect of cultural differences in the relationship between some of those variables and flourishing, personal well-being or quality of life (Bernardo et al., 2018a, 2018b; Hutz et al., 2014).

The above brief review shows the increasing relevance of cross-cultural research in positive psychology; therefore, it seems relevant to engage in more cross-cultural comparative studies to broaden knowledge of the universal vs cultural value of theories, models and relationships of central elements of Positive Psychology. One of the constructs which has shown to be central to well-being is hope. Many authors have identified hope as a key resource in our lives because of its role in our mental and physical health, and in our well-being (Bailey et al., 2007; Scioli et al., 2016). However, most of the research has focused on the positive effect of hope on one of the elements of well-being, i.e. life satisfaction (Alarcon et al., 2013; Bailey et al., 2007; Du et al., 2015; Krafft et al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2007, among others) and less research has examined the relationship between hope and flourishing, which is another main element of well-being.

Considering the role of culture, some studies have shown that some aspects of hope are universal across cultures (Bernardo et al., 2018a, 2018b; Ling et al., 2016). However, although hope is relevant in all cultures, the conceptualization of hope, its central elements, and the sources or targets of hope would be different in different cultures (Bernardo, 2010). Due to the important role of hope and flourishing in our well-being, we considered it valuable to examine and understand possible cultural differences in the conceptualization and elements of hope and in its role in flourishing.

In this chapter we report a cross cultural comparison of hope between samples from a Mediterranean European country (Spain) and an African country with multicultural roots, including North European roots (South Africa). As previously indicated, there is a lack of comparative positive psychological research between European and African countries. The current study could therefore extend knowledge on similarities and differences in hope and flourishing in these two contexts. We also explore the possible cross-cultural differences in sources of hope. Finally, we analyze the possible differences and common aspects in the role of hope in flourishing in both countries.

## 8.2 Hope and Flourishing

Hope has been defined and conceptualized in several ways. Most of the theories agree in conceptualizing hope as a positive expectation about future outcomes (Krafft & Walker, 2018a; Krafft et al., 2019), but there are also several differences in the conceptualization and theoretical models of hope. In fact, there is not a single, unified conceptualization of hope, as some authors conceptualize hope as a multidimensional psychological construct (Dufault & Martocchio, 1985; Herth, 1992) others highlight hope as an emotion (Averill et al., 1990) while others conceptualize it as a cognitive mind-set (Snyder, 1994, 2000, 2002).

Despite those discrepancies, Snyder's hope model and the dispositional hope scale (DHS) (Snyder et al., 1991) is one of the most widely used in research. It is consistently discussed in the literature on hope and its relationship with other variables, and it is used in measuring hope among different populations and in various languages (Bernardo, 2010; Lopez et al., 2003). In Snyder's model, hope is seen as a motivational resource to plan and perform actions in order to achieve goals; it is like a cognitive evaluation by individuals of their ability to achieve their goals (Snyder, 1994). This involves various elements: goal setting, agency thoughts and pathways to achieve those goals (Snyder, 2000).

However, Snyder's model has received some criticism regarding its lack of accounting for possible cultural differences, especially between western and eastern cultures, mainly about the role of other significant people such as family or even other significant spiritual beliefs as sources of hope (Bernardo, 2010). Another important criticism of this model concerns its excessive emphasis on the cognitive nature of hope, minimizing the role of the other elements of hope such as the emotional or spiritual components (Bruininks & Howington, 2018; Scioli et al., 2011).

Accordingly, another conceptualization and measurement of hope have been put forward. Krafft et al. (2019) developed the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) in order to assess hope as it is perceived by ordinary people. These authors proposed a concise hope measure to "assess hope directly in order to gain access to individuals' unfiltered judgment of their own level of hopefulness..." (Krafft et al., 2019, pp. 1597). Furthermore, the PHS aims to assess hope free of cognitive and spiritual bias, and could be used in different populations and cultures, as well as among people with different belief systems. In that sense, the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) was designed in order to have a hope assessment scale that fulfil those requirements.

Despite the controversies and difficulties of its conceptualization and measure, there is no doubt that hope plays an important role in achieving positive outcomes in different fields such as academic, work, and social spheres, and it is also central to our well-being. Previous research has shown that hope is positively related to subjective well-being, specifically the hedonic elements such as life satisfaction (Bailey & Snyder, 2007; Diener & Chan, 2011; Rand et al., 2011, among others). However, other theories focus more on eudaimonic aspects of well-being, broadly referred to as psychological well-being (Ryff, 1995). Recent research suggests that there is considerable overlap among these facets of well-being and points to the need to integrate these two components in understanding well-being (Díaz et al., 2015; Disabato et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2001, among others). More recent conceptualizations of psychological well-being propose a more integrated view of these two perspectives on well-being and define psychological well-being as a multidimensional construct composed by emotional elements—hedonic components like life satisfaction—and the eudaimonic component -as the optimal functioning and flourishing- (Kern et al., 2014).

The concept of human flourishing has its origins in antiquity, specifically in Aristotle who described flourishing as the ultimate end or goal of a good life, which he also referred to as "good spirit" (Levin, 2020). Flourishing has been related to the sense of purpose in life, hope, and many positive emotions like happiness (Gunderman, 2008), also with clear goals in life and positive emotions such as optimism (Keyes, 2007). In that sense, flourishing is about optimal psychological functioning, which includes positive relationships, feelings of competence, and meaning and purpose in life (Diener et al., 2010).

Concerning the relationship between hope and flourishing, some authors such as Cohn and Fredrickson (2009) pointed out that hope could be considered a part of the eudaimonic component of flourishing. However, as previously stated, while there is evidence of the association between hope and life satisfaction (Alarcon et al., 2013; Bailey & Snyder, 2007; Rand et al., 2011), less is known about the relationship between hope and flourishing.

The limited research has shown some evidence that hope is a major predictor of flourishing, above resilience (Munoz et al., 2020). In another study, Khodarahimi (2013) reported that high levels of hope were related to a sense of flourishing. This study also found evidence for the association between hope and flourishing with emotions. Specifically, higher levels of hope and flourishing were related to more positive emotions, and conversely, low levels of hope and flourishing were related with more negative emotions. These results are consistent with research suggesting that both variables, hope and flourishing, are related to life satisfaction (Diener & Chan, 2011; Gunderman, 2008; Keyes, 2007; Snyder et al., 1991, 1994, 2000). There is also some evidence about the mediating role of hope in the relationship between flourishing and fear of happiness (Belen et al., 2020).

These results show that it is important to explore the relationship between hope and flourishing in more depth, in order to better understand their dynamics in our well-being and fulfilment. Additionally, more research is needed to explore possible cultural differences in these relationships. Finally, we have to highlight that most existing studies have implemented Snyder's hope measures, and more research is needed using other measures and conceptualizations of hope. In that sense, using a more comprehensive conceptualization of hope, namely perceived hope (Krafft et al., 2019) could be useful to understanding the dynamics of flourishing. Additionally, more research is required to confirm the cross-cultural applicability of the PHS.

## 8.3 Hope and Flourishing in Cross-Cultural Context

## 8.3.1 Cross-Cultural Research on Hope

Snyder's Hope model (Snyder, 1994, 2002) has been widely applied to behavioural and psychological studies. The function of hope and its relationship to other personal variables and behaviour seems to be the same in different cultures (Chang & Banks, 2007). Most studies agree in the applicability and reliability of Snyder's dispositional hope scale (DHS) and conclude that it has cross-cultural applicability (Chang & Banks, 2007; Flores-Lucas et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018). However, as we pointed out earlier, recent studies reported subtle cross-cultural differences in some of the components of hope, like in pathways (Li et al., 2018). Other studies, such as the one carried out by Tang (2019) among Chinese people in the United Kingdom, show that there are other factors, like certain cultural traits, that mediate the relationship between hope and agency development. Furthermore, cultural and social context elements mediate the role of hope in its effects on recovery (Matsuoka, 2015; Mattingly, 2010).

Probably one of the main critical reviews of Snyder's Hope Model in relation to cultural differences is Bernardo's (2010) extension to Snyder's hope theory. This author stated that, in conjoint cultures in which there is a contextual sense of self, such as Asian cultures, the influence and the interdependence of others such as the family would be stronger than in disjoint cultures. Thus, his conjoint model of agency assumes that definition and motivational thoughts related to goals are defined interpersonally, not only individually (Bernardo, 2010; Bernardo et al., 2018b). In that sense, he proposed his four-factor locus-of-hope model (one internal and three externals—family, friends and spirituality) loci of hope and it has been verified in various Asian cultural groups (Bernardo & Estrellado, 2014; Bernardo & Nalipay, 2016; Bernardo et al., 2016). Several studies have shown that there is a significant relation between those external loci of hope and well-being indicators in adults, high school and university students (Bernardo, 2015; Bernardo & Estrellado, 2017a, 2017b; Bernardo et al., 2017). However, as Bernardo and Mendoza (2020) said, the locus-of-hope model does not mean that Snyder's hope theory is not crossculturally valid; he only argues that it is incomplete because people in different cultures might have different agency (personal or shared) in goal related thoughts. In that sense, using other measures of hope with a broader hope conceptualization would be useful in order to explore hope in a more comprehensive way across different cultures.

Regarding perceived hope, there are only a few cross-cultural comparisons reported to date, with inconclusive results. Krafft and Choubisa (2018) found no significant differences in levels of perceived hope between a sample of Indian and German participants. However, there were significant differences in the levels of perceived hope between Czech and Maltese participants, with the Czech sample showing significant higher levels of perceived hope (Slezackova et al., 2018). Further, a sample of young Indian participants showed significantly higher levels of perceived hope compared to their Spanish counterparts (Flores-Lucas et al., 2018). It is evident that more research on perceived hope is required in crosscultural contexts.

In relation to other elements of hope, partially related with Bernardo's (2010) proposal of different loci of hope, Krafft and Walker (2018b) proposed that there are different hope providers and different activities which people do in order to achieve hope, and that those could be different in different cultures. Krafft and Choubisa (2018) and Flores-Lucas et al. (2018) found significant differences between German and Indian samples regarding hope providers and hope activities, and between German, Indian and Spanish young people regarding hope providers respectively.

Therefore, we consider it relevant to analyze in depth the possible cross-cultural commonalities and differences in a more global way and assess hope using the PHS, as well as the DHS. We also deem it important to explore possible cross-cultural differences in hope providers or hope activities. This will enable us to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of hope across cultures and the multidimensional nature of the concept of hope.

## 8.3.2 Cross-Cultural Research on Flourishing

Numerous studies have pointed out the positive impact of flourishing on individuals. In this sense, flourishing people report healthier relationships, higher levels of life satisfaction or greater job satisfaction, among other benefits (i.e., Keyes, 2004; Seligman, 2011). However, to date, the study of flourishing across nations has received less attention. Some research has attempted to clarify the effect of flourishing variability by comparing different countries.

A recent line of cross-cultural research on flourishing has focused on determining its impact in populations as well as exploring differences among them through diverse perspectives. For example, some studies have focused on cross-culturally testing theoretical models on flourishing and making comparisons between the levels of flourishing between different countries. In this vein, Huppert and So (2013) proposed a conceptual delimitation of flourishing through the combination of a series of indicators linked to well-being such as competence, optimism, or emotional stability, among others. Subsequently, they analyzed flourishing in 22 European countries, which were divided into 3 regions: Northern Europe, Southern/Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The results showed a high consistency between regions, as well as differences between countries, regarding both the prevalence of flourishing and characteristics that defined it. In general, the Nordic countries showed the highest levels of flourishing while the Eastern countries showed the lowest. In a similar line, and employing a sample composed of US, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Chinese and Mexican participants, Wȩziak-Białowolska et al. (2019) observed differences between cultures on the different dimensions of flourishing analysed. Specifically, Chinese participants showed high levels in flourishing social relations and health dimensions, Cambodian individuals in satisfaction with life and characters and virtues and the Mexican population on purpose in life. Regarding their levels on the flourishing index, Cambodian and Chinese participants scored highest, followed by Mexicans, whereas the US and Sri Lankan samples obtained the lowest scores. Santini et al. (2020) also reported differences in flourishing between Canadian, Danish and Dutch samples. In particular, they found higher prevalence rates of flourishing for Canadians, followed by Danish and Dutch individuals. It is evident that more research is needed in order to expand knowledge of cross-cultural differences associated with flourishing.

Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of research on the relationship between hope and flourishing across cultures. To address this gap, we intended to examine the role of hope, conceptualized as perceived hope as well as dispositional hope, and flourishing across two different countries: Spain and South Africa, a European country, and an African country.

## 8.4 Hope and Flourishing in Spain and South Africa

South Africa and Spain are two countries that share some characteristics, but they are also quite different on various levels. Despite the fact that both have a European heritage, there are also several cultural and ethnic differences, which may contribute to differences in hope and flourishing.

## 8.4.1 The South African Context

South Africa is a multicultural country with four main ethnic groups. A total of 80. 9% of the population is of African ethnicity. The remaining three population groups are Coloured (8.8%), White (7.8%) and Indian (2.5%). The term "coloured" is officially used in the South African census and refers to individuals from mixedrace ancestry (IndexMundi, 2020). It is also a reasonably young democracy, with the first democratic elections involving all South Africans taking place in 1994. However, after 27 years the majority of the population remains less affluent than the minority white group (Adams et al., 2016). There are consistent concerns about the political and economic situation (Guse, 2018), further fuelled by an unemployment rate of 26.6%, which temporarily reached 30% during 2020 (Statistics South Africa, 2018, 2020). In sum, South Africa is an unequal society, which has implications for people's hopes, expectations and well-being.

Research on hope and flourishing in the South African context is only starting to emerge. Existing studies revealed relatively high levels of dispositional and perceived hope among adults (Guse, 2018; Guse & Shaw, 2018; Guse & van Zyl, 2019; Slezackova et al., 2021). However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as some studies question the validity of existing hope measures in African contexts (Abler et al., 2017; Hansen et al., 2020). In addition, social class and perceived social standing seem to be associated with lower levels of hope among South Africans (Boyce & Harris, 2013).

In terms of flourishing, several studies examined levels of optimal functioning or flourishing among South African adults and adolescents. Most research conceptualized flourishing using Keyes' (2002, 2005) model of the mental health continuum. Existing cross-cultural studies reported that a South African sample showed higher levels of social and psychological well-being in comparison to samples from the Netherlands and Iran (Joshanloo et al., 2013).

Studies using the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010) reported mean scores reflecting relatively high levels of flourishing (Coetzee & Oosthuizen, 2017; Mason, 2019; Nel, 2019). However, these studies were mainly conducted in work contexts or among university students and more research is needed in community samples. Research on the dynamics between hope and flourishing in the South African context indicated that higher levels of hope are associated with higher levels of flourishing or well-being (Guse & Shaw, 2018; Guse & Vermaak, 2011). Still, more research among adults is needed to confirm these findings.

## 8.4.2 The Spanish Context

Spain is a country with different autonomous regions; some of them have their own language in addition to Castilian (Spanish), and their own cultural heritage. However, there are also wide communal roots, history, and culture. Spain has been receiving an increasing number of people from other countries in recent years. In fact, since the turn of the century, Spain has experienced great social change due to massive immigration (Del Pueblo, 2019). According the 2020 report on immigration by the governmental Permanent Immigration Observatory (2020), the number of legal immigrants was 5,800,468 people in December of 2020, most of them (61%) from European Union Countries. Most of the migrants from countries not in the EU come from Morocco, China, Venezuela and Ecuador. This is a significant change, not only in terms of the number of migrants, but also qualitatively in terms of cultural and social diversity that it has generated (Del Pueblo, 2019).

The economic situation is relatively good, but unemployment in Spain is higher in comparison with other countries of the EU. In 2020, unemployment stood at 15.5%, although it is more severe among young people: in the population under 25 years old unemployment rose to 38.3% by the end of that year according to the data from the National Statistics Institute (INE, 2020a). In sum, Spain is a relatively culturally diverse country, economically developed but with a high rate of unemployment and increasing levels of poverty and inequality and with growing disaffection towards and lack of trust in politicians.

Regarding the research into hope in Spain, as far as we know there are very few studies on the subject. It is of growing interest among researchers in positive psychology, but research into hope is still scarce. Some studies among adolescents indicated that hope is associated with a better self-perception of general health (Esteban-Gonzalo et al., 2020). Furthermore, few recent studies have related hope with resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, but results were inconclusive (Robles-Bello et al., 2020). There is also some evidence of hope as a predictor of quality of life among the Spanish population (Flores-Lucas & Martínez-Sinovas, 2019). There are even fewer cross-cultural hope studies of Spain and other countries. In our previous study, Flores-Lucas et al. (2018), we found some subtle differences in sources of hope (providers) between Spanish, Indian and German university students, and, more interestingly, we did not find differences in dispositional hope. However, we found significant differences in perceived hope between Indian and Spanish students: in our samples, Spanish students had significantly lower levels of perceived hope than Indian students. However, the limited number of studies and the limitations of these studies, like our cross-cultural study, obliged us to be cautions with our conclusions and engage in more research among Spanish participants as well as cross-cultural comparisons.

Regarding flourishing, Huppert and So (2013) compared 22 European countries, including Spain, on a flourishing scale, which combined multiple positive features. Spain was in 13th position of 22 on global flourishing criteria, above Portugal and France, for example, and below countries like Cyprus, Belgium, and Germany. However, the most striking feature was that Spain showed extreme variations from highest to lowest scores throughout the different features, being one of the countries with more extreme variability along with France and Bulgaria. Regarding the different features assessed in this flourishing survey, Spain is the country with the highest scores in self-esteem and the country with the lowest scores in competence and vitality.

As there are limited studies on hope among Spanish adults, we cannot yet draw conclusions about the dynamics of hope and flourishing in the Spanish context. Thus, more research is warranted.

## 8.4.3 Rationale for Comparing South Africa and Spain on Hope and Flourishing

Although Spain and South Africa are two countries that share not only some characteristics but also a European heritage, they are also very different. Despite the fact that both have a European heritage as common ground, they are culturally different. Spain, although a European country, differs from North European countries, as it has a Mediterranean culture with some particular characteristics that set it apart from Northern European countries. However, the European heritage of South Africa comes from Northern European countries. Thus, both countries also differ in areas of their common European heritage. They further differ in terms of age of the population, language, geography, and social and political indicators. For example, where Spain is a more homogenous country in terms of language (even though there are four official languages which are spoken in specific regions), South Africa has 11 official languages spoken by four main population groups. South Africa also has a very young population, with a median age of 28 years, while in Spain it is 43.9 years (IndexMundi, 2020). Spain is about half of the size of South Africa, but has almost the same size of population, which means it has a higher population density (My life elsewhere, n.d.). In terms of economy and quality of life, Spain yielded higher scores in most of the economic indicators (GDP, GDP per capita, unemployment, etc.) (countryeconomy.com, n.d.). Furthermore, the countries differ in terms of the United Nations' Human Development Index (which measures life expectancy, education and income) with South Africa scoring lower than Spain. South Africa has also worse indicators for inequality and human security (such as murder and suicide rates, UNDP, 2020).

Comparing South Africa and Spain could also be understood using Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions. The countries share some common features, for example, both countries have high scores on the dimension of power distance, so they accept a hierarchical society. Both are also seen as individualistic societies (although in the South African context this may only be true for the White population group). However, there were contradictory findings: Minkov et al. (2017) reported Spain to be a more individualistic country than South Africa, while Hofstede (2001) reported the opposite. Moreover, in comparison to other Europeans countries (except Portugal), Spain is a more collectivist country (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede, n.d.). However, while there are inconsistent findings regarding dimensions of collectivismindividualism in the two countries, it is evident that they may differ to some extent.

Spain and South Africa also seem to differ on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance and pessimism, with Spain scoring much higher in this aspect. On the other hand, Spain scored lower on masculinity and indulgence. This means that Spanish people have a great aversion to uncertainty, which generates a great deal of anxiety. They need rules for everything, even when they are obliged break them if they make life more difficult. Regarding masculinity, Spanish society is not driven by achievement or competition. Spain is less competitive and looks for more cooperation and balance. Spanish people do not like excessive competitiveness and they do not have a conception of success defined by being a winner or the best in the field. Finally, Spain is a restrained society, which is related to a pessimistic view of the life and the future. Spanish people feel that their actions are restrained by social norms and that self-indulgence is a bad thing (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede, n.d.). We believe that comparing hope and flourishing among samples from South Africa and Spain could contribute to cross-cultural understanding of these positive psychological characteristics.

## 8.5 The Current Study

The broad research goal of our research is to examine possible differences in hope between South African and Spanish samples and to explore the role of perceived hope in flourishing in these countries.

The specific research aims are:

## 8.6 Methods and Measurements

## 8.6.1 Participants

Our sample consisted of 206 adults from the general population, of which 100 were South African and 106 were Spanish. The mean age of the participants was 39.58 (SD = 13.29) years for the Spanish sample and 42.65 (SD = 13.57) years for the South African sample. The majority of the participants in both samples were female, namely 79 (74,5%) of the Spanish sample and 81 (81%) of the South African sample. The samples were equivalent in terms of age (t = 1.637; p = 0.103) and gender (contingency analysis Chi square = 1.243; p = 0.265). Additional sociodemographic variables that were considered for the study are described in Table 8.1 below. The majority of both samples obtained a higher education qualification, held full-time employment, and endorsed a religion.

## 8.6.2 Measures

We used the following scales to assess the variables of comparison in this study. The South African sample completed the English versions, while the Spanish sample completed the adapted Spanish versions.

Table 8.1 Demographic information of all samples

(continued)

#### Table 8.1 (continued)

#### Perceived Hope Scale (PHS)

This is a scale to assess hope, as it is perceived by ordinary people, it is formed by 6 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0–5 (where 0 is "strongly disagree" and 5 is "strongly agree") (Krafft et al., 2019). Validation studies reported Cronbach alpha values of 0.87–0.94 (Krafft et al., 2019, 2021; Marujo et al., 2021). In the current study the Cronbach alpha values were 0.89 and 0.86 for the South African and Spanish samples, respectively.

#### Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (DHS)

This scale assesses hope according Snyder's hope model. It has eight items and two subscales: Agency thinking and Pathways thinking (Snyder et al., 1991). Items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale with an answer 0–5 rank (where 0 "is strongly disagree" and 5 is "strongly agree"). The DHS has been implemented in many international studies and demonstrated acceptable reliability indices (Krafft et al., 2021). The Cronbach alpha value for the overall DHS ranged from 0.74 to 0.84; from 0.71 to 0.76 for the Agency subscale, and from 0.63 to 0.80 for the Pathways subscale (Snyder et al., 1991). In the current study, the Cronbach alpha values were 0.82 for the overall DHS score for both samples, for the Agency scale 0.71 and 0.68 for the South African and Spanish samples respectively and for Pathways subscale, 0.82 for both samples.

#### Flourishing Scale

This scale assesses positive human functioning or flourishing. It is an eight-item scale, and 7-point answer Likert scale with a rank of answers from 0 to 7 (where 0 is "strongly disagree" and 7 is "strongly agree") (Diener et al., 2010). The reported Cronbach alpha value was 0.87. In our samples, the Cronbach alpha values were 0.87 for the South African sample and 0.86 for the Spanish sample.

Additionally, we also used 13 questions to obtain information about the activities that people engage in to fulfil their hopes and to attain the hoped-for targets (Hope activities) with a Likert scale of 4 points with an answer rank from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very often). These questions are classified in four dimensions: Cognitive-rational dimension; Social-relational dimension; Spiritual-religious dimension, and motivational/agency dimension (Krafft & Walker, 2018a). Additionally, we obtained sociodemographic information such as educational level, marital status, and employment status, among others.

## 8.6.3 Procedure

Our study is a cross-sectional international survey and is part of the International Hope Barometer Survey, as described by Krafft in an earlier chapter in this book. Data collection took place in November 2018. Data were obtained by distributing the survey through different communication media (social networks, webpages, radio stations, email, etc.) in order to get the widest variety of participants in the samples. Participants completed the survey anonymously online.

## 8.6.4 Ethical Considerations

Participants voluntarily participated in the study and were informed of the aims of the study and the confidential treatment of the data; thus, the study was in accordance with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later addenda.

## 8.6.5 Data Analysis

We used the Mplus 8.6 software to conduct the invariance analysis of the Perceived Hope Scale between the two samples in order to check the viability of making meaningful comparisons between the two samples using this scale. Additionally, we used the SPSS statistical package version 23 to calculate descriptive statistics and perform additional analyses. First, we calculated the descriptive statistics of the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample to describe the two samples. In order to analyse the possible differences between the two samples on the main variables, we conducted a T-test mean differences analysis. Additionally, to identify the most important sources of hope, we ranked the relevance that participants gave to the different hope activities using the mean scores. To analyse the possible differences in the relevance given to those activities between the two samples, we used a T-test comparison analysis. Finally, in order to examine the predictive power of the main variables in perceived hope and flourishing in each sample we used a bivariate correlational analysis and later a stepwise multiple regression analysis.

## 8.7 Results

## 8.7.1 Invariance Analysis

As a first step before carrying out the rest of the analyses, we checked the measurement invariance of the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) to test that data from both samples were comparable. To do that, we applied confirmatory factor analysis in a stepwise incremental manner, moving from configurational invariance to scalar invariance, which is considered the most restricted model to obtain invariance between samples. In this case, we used the Maximum Likelihood Method (MLR estimator) as well as the following indices: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR).

First, we applied a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to the total sample. As can be seen in Table 8.2, fix indices for the one-factor model showed a good model fit (RMSEA and SRMR values lower than 0.08 and CFI and TLI values higher than 0.90). Second, after confirming the structure of the scale, we checked the configural, metric, and scalar invariance between the Spanish and South African samples (see Table 8.2). Results did no show statistically significant differences in the model fit between the configural and the metric models ( p = 0.20), the metric and the scalar models ( p = 0.07), and the configural and the scalar model ( p = 0.07).

In addition, and similar to the total sample, the equal form (configurational invariance) provided an adequate fit (see Table 8.2). Furthermore, employing the configural model as baseline, and following the recommended threshold values (Chen, 2007) to test the measurement invariance, we observed, except for the SRMR parameter, an acceptable goodness of fit indices for metric invariance (Δ RMSEA = 0.005; Δ CFI = 0.004; ΔTLI = - 0.004; ΔSRMR=-0.047) and for scalar invariance (Δ RMSEA = 0.002; Δ CFI = 0.012; ΔTLI = - 0.002; ΔSRMR = - 0.055). Therefore, in general, our data showed strong measurement invariance between Spanish and South African populations for the Perceived Hope Scale.

Table 8.2 Measurement invariance of the perceived Hope scale among Spanish and South African samples

## 8.7.2 Mean Differences in Levels of Hope and Flourishing Between the Two Samples

As reflected in Table 8.3, there were statistically significant differences between the South African and Spanish samples in hope. Specifically, the South African sample showed significantly higher levels of perceived hope ( p = 0.04) and dispositional hope ( p < 0.001). However, the effect size for perceived hope was small (d = 0.28) and medium for dispositional hope (d = 0.53). The difference in flourishing between the two samples was not significant.

## 8.7.3 Mean Values and Rank Orders for Hope Activities Among the Two Samples

In Table 8.4 we report on the most important sources of hope, i.e., the activities that people engage in to generate hope.

For both samples, the three most important hope-generating activities were similar, although slightly different in rank order. There were statistically significant differences in the mean scores for endorsing specific hope-generating activities between the two samples. Specifically, the South African sample showed statistically significant higher scores for the following activities: "I pray, meditate" (t(204) = 8.057; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.856; 1.410]), "I take responsibility and commit myself" (t(186,192) = 3.809; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.123; 0.388]), "I go to church/other place of worship" (t(178,095) = 5.951; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.605; 1.206]), "I donate money to the object of my hopes" (t(204) = 4.236; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.293; .802]), "I trust in God" (t(204) = 8.275; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.944; 1.534]) and "I talk about my hopes with my spouse/partner" (t(200,761) = 3.668; p < 0.001; IC95% [0.239; 0.794]). Large effect sizes were evident for "I pray, meditate" (d = 0.978) and "I trust in God" (d = 1.002); medium effect sizes were discovered for "I take responsibility and commit myself" (d = 0.518), "I go to church/other place of worship"

Table 8.3 Means, standard deviations and t-tests of Hope and flourishing variables for South African and Spanish samples

\*p < 0.05

\*\* p < 0.01

d—Cohen's effect size

\*p < 0.05

 \*\* p < 0.01 d—Cohen's effect size

(d = 0.778) and "I donate money to the object of my hopes" (d = 0.570); and small effect size was observed for "I talk about my hopes with my spouse/partner" (d = 0.497).

## 8.8 Predictors of Perceived Hope

Correlational analysis and multiple linear regression analyses were carried out to study the predictive power of hope activities and sociodemographic variables on perceived hope.

## 8.8.1 Hope Activities as Predictors of Perceived Hope

The correlational analysis showed some statistically significant relationships for: "I pray, meditate" (r = 0.342; p < 0.001), "I go to church/other place of worship" (r = 0.298; p = 0.001) and "I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes" (r = 0.310; p = 0.001) for the South African sample. In the Spanish sample, the hope activities that significantly correlated with perceived hope were: "I motivate my friends" (r = 0.249; p = 0.005), "I go to church/other place of worship" (r = 0.279; p = 0.002), "I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes" (r = 0.426; p < 0.001), "I save money" (r = 0.315; p = 0.001), "I trust in God" (r = 0.300; p = 0.001) and "I talk about my hopes with my spouse/partner" (r = 0.271; p = 0.002).

The stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that, in the South African sample, perceived hope was predicted through the following hope activities (see Table 8.5): "I pray, meditate" (beta = 0.274; p = 0.004), "I talk about my hopes with spouses/partner" (beta = 0.217; p = 0.018) and "I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes" (beta = 0.224; p = 0.019). The regression model for the South African sample was significant [F (3) = 8.865; p < 0.001] and explained 21.7% of the variance of perceived hope (R = 0.466; R2 = 0.217; R2 adjusted = 0.192). In the Spanish sample (see Table 8.6), the hope activities that were significant predictors of the perception of hope were: "I have a job that allows me to fulfil my hopes" (beta = 0.364; p < 0.001), "I trust in God" (beta = 0.221; p = 0.012) and "I

Table 8.5 Hope activities as predictors of perceived Hope for the South African sample

\* p < 0.05

$$^{\ast\ast}p < 0.01$$

Table 8.6 Hope activities as predictors of perceived Hope for the Spanish sample

\*p < 0.05

\*\* p < 0.01

\*p < 0.05

motivate my friends" (beta = 0.191; p = 0.027). The model was significant [F (3) = 12.516; p < 0.001] and explained 26.9% of the variance of perceived hope (R = 0.519; R2 = 0.269; R2 adjusted = 0.248).

## 8.8.2 Sociodemographic Predictors of Perceived Hope

Demographic characteristics of the participants were previously presented in Table 8.1. Here, we present the findings from the regression analyses.

The correlational analysis showed the following significant differences in correlations with perceived hope: For the South African sample it was gender (r = 0.171; p = 0.045) and for the Spanish sample they were age (r = 0.236; p = 0.007), religion (r = -0.169; p = 0.042) and main activity (r = 0.205; p = 0.017).

Regarding the predictive power of sociodemographic variables (age, gender, family status, education level and professional status, main activity, and religion) in hope, we did not find any predictive significant regression model for the South African sample. Regarding the Spanish sample, age (beta = 0.236; p = 0.015) was the only significant predictor in the multiple linear regression analysis (see Table 8.7). This regression model was significant [F (1) = 6.119; p < 0.05] and explained 5.6% of the variance of perceived hope (R = 0.236; R2 = 0.056; R2 adjusted = 0.046).

## 8.8.3 Perceived Hope and Dispositional Hope as Predictors of Flourishing

In order to analyse the predictive power of Perceived Hope and Dispositional Hope on Flourishing, we firstly carried out bivariate correlations which showed strong positive relationships between all variables (see Tables 8.8 and 8.9).

In a second step, we did linear regression analyses for both samples. For the South African sample (see Table 8.10), flourishing was strongly predicted by perceived hope (beta = 0.505; p < 0.001) and moderately predicted by agency (beta = 0.312; p < 0.001). Dispositional hope and pathways were no predictors for flourishing. The linear regression model for the South African sample was significant [F (2) = 42.982; p < 0.001] and explained 47% of the variance of flourishing (R = 0.685; R2 = 0.470; R2 adjusted = 0.459).

The multiple linear regression analysis for the Spanish sample (see Table 8.11) identified agency (beta = 0.443; p < 0.001) and perceived hope (beta = 0.305;

– – – – –– – Variable Flourishing Perceived Hope Dispositional Hope Agency Pathways Flourishing 1 – Perceived Hope 0.621\*\* 1 Dispositional Hope 0.535\*\* 0.501\*\* 1 – Agency 0.501\*\* 0.373\*\* 0.848\*\* 1 – Pathways 0.431\*\* 0.488\*\* 0.882\*\* 0.499\*\* 1

Table 8.8 Bivariate correlations among flourishing and hope variables for the South African sample

\*\*p < 0.001

Table 8.9 Bivariate correlations among flourishing and hope variables for the Spanish sample

\*\*p < 0.001

Table 8.10 Predictors of flourishing for the South African sample

\*\* p < 0.01

Table 8.11 Predictors of flourishing for the Spanish sample

\*\* p < 0.01

Table 8.12 Sociodemographic variables as predictors of flourishing for the South African sample

Table 8.13 Sociodemographic variables as predictors of flourishing for the Spanish sample

p < 0.001) as predictors of flourishing. For this sample, dispositional hope and pathways variables were not found as significant predictors for flourishing. The model was significant [F (2) = 40.868; p < 0.001] and explained 44% of the variance of flourishing (R = 0.655; R2 = 0.442; R2 adjusted = 0.432).

## 8.8.4 Sociodemographic Variables as Predictors of Flourishing

For the South African sample (see Table 8.12), the multiple stepwise regression analysis showed that education level was the only predictor of flourishing (beta = 0.224; p = 0.025). This regression model was significant [F (1) = 5.163; p = 0.025] and explained 5% of the variance (R = 0.224; R2 = 0.050; R2 adjusted = 0.040). For the Spanish sample (see Table 8.13) the only predictor of flourishing was professional status (beta = 0.236; p = 0.015). The model was significant [F (1) = 5.847; p = 0.015] and explained 5.3% of the variance of flourishing (R = 0.231; R2 = 0.053; R2 adjusted = 0.044).

## 8.9 Discussion

The main aim of our study was to examine and compare hope and flourishing between South African and Spanish adults. We first examined the measurement invariance of the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) in order to engage in meaningful comparisons between the two groups. Our results showed that the PHS met the invariance criteria and that we could continue to compare the two samples with this scale.

The first research aim was to investigate the significance of differences in perceived hope, dispositional hope and flourishing between the two samples. Our results showed that the South African sample showed a significantly higher level of perceived hope than the Spanish sample but with a small effect size. Similarly, the South African sample showed higher levels of dispositional hope than the Spanish sample. These results are concordant with previous studies indicating that Spanish young people showed significantly lower levels of perceived hope than Indian young people, but not different from German young people (Flores-Lucas et al., 2018). Similarly, Slezackova et al. (2021) found that a South African sample scored significantly higher on perceived hope than a Czech sample. Thus, despite the fact that South Africa is a developing country and economically less advantaged than Spain, the sample in this study was more hopeful than the Spanish sample. Some reasons for these differences in hope may be offered.

Overall, we can consider cultural differences between the two countries in terms of Hofstede's (2001) dimensions of culture. According to Hofstede (2001), South Africa scored low on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, whereas Spain scored high. This means that South African culture is more relaxed, flexible, and tolerant of ambiguity, while Spanish culture seems to prefer rules and are concerned about undefined situations (Hofstede, n.d.). Research suggests that higher levels of hope are associated with a higher tolerance for uncertainty (Balen & Merluzzi, 2021; Sancam et al., 2020) which could partly explain the higher mean hope score for the South African sample. Another dimension of culture which could be considered is that of indulgence. This dimension is broadly defined as the extent to which individuals control their impulses, based on their upbringing. According to Hofstede's (2001) survey, South African culture reflects higher endorsement of indulgence, and therefore holds more positive and optimistic attitudes. Conversely, Spanish culture seems to be less indulgent and to have a tendency towards cynicism and pessimism (Hofstede n.d.). Several studies suggest that higher levels of optimism are associated with higher levels of hope (see Krafft et al., 2021 for a recent review). Therefore, the difference in levels of hope between the two samples may also partly be due to the fact that South African culture is generally an optimistic culture. Hofstede's scores on the dimensions of culture for South Africa was based on research among mostly White adults, as was the sample in the current study. However, findings should be interpreted cautiously as it may not reflect the diversity of cultures in South Africa.

There was no statistically significant difference in mean scores for flourishing between the South African and Spanish samples, which indicates that the two groups experienced similar levels of socio-psychological prosperity, or overall psychological well-being, from a subjective point of view (Diener et al., 2010). This was a surprising finding, given that Spain ranked much higher (36) than South Africa (105) in the 2018 World Happiness Report (WHR) (Sachs et al., 2018). However, the WHR evaluates subjective well-being through a single question, and may not adequately assess other dimensions of well-being such as relationships, self-esteem, purpose, and optimism.

The second research aim was to identify the most important sources of hope, as reflected in activities that generate hope, for the two samples. Although both samples pointed out the same activities as the three most important hope activities, our results indicate that South African and Spanish adults differed significantly in endorsing some activities that generate hope (here referred to as hope activities). There were statistically significantly differences in mean scores for endorsing activities with religious/spiritual dimensions. Specifically, the South African sample was more likely to "trust in God", "pray; meditate" or "to go to church/other place to worship" as means to generate hope. In addition, the South African sample seem more likely to donate to others as a way to increase hope. Further, the two samples differed in endorsing activities with motivational/agency dimensions, as South African participants were more likely to take responsibility for generating their own hope and to find hope in having a job. On the social-relational dimension of hope activities, South African participants more often indicated that they would talk about their hopes with a spouse. We did not find any significant difference in any items from the cognitive-rational dimension. In terms of overall ranking of activities, both samples indicated that taking responsibility for generating hope themselves was the most important source of hope.

South Africa is a very religious country, with most people considering God important to their lives (Kollamparambil, 2020; Loubser & Kotzé, 2017). It can be expected that South African adults would endorse spiritual/religious activities as very important in generating hope in South African people. Spain is a country in which a majority of people identify themselves as Catholic, but when asked if they practise religious activities like going to church, praying, etc., most Spanish people answer that they do not practise any religious activity (Centre of Sociological Research (CIS), 2018, 2021). Thus, it seems that Spanish people may hold religious beliefs but they do not practise any specific religious activity. This difference between the two countries in their religious activities may explain the differences in the role of these activities in their different levels of perceived hope. In fact, according to a previous study among German and Swiss samples, the activities which have more predictive value on perceived hope were those from religious/ spiritual; motivational/agency and relational dimensions (Krafft & Walker, 2018b). This lends some support to our idea that differences in the hope activities found in our study could partially explain the differences in perceived hope found between the two countries.

Further, given the high rate of unemployment in South Africa, having a job may sustain hope and this activity may be more important to South African than Spanish participants. The findings that the South African sample was more likely to talk to a spouse as a hope activity is difficult to explain in a cross-cultural context. Existing research supports the notion that effective communication is key to relationship satisfaction and ultimately well-being in general (see du Plooy & de Beer, 2018, for a review), but it is unclear whether cultural differences between the two samples may have contributed to our findings.

The third aim of our study was to investigate the predictive power of these hope activities in explaining perceived hope for the two samples. The linear multiple regression analysis showed that the strongest hope activities predictors of perceived hope in South African sample were "I pray/meditate"; "I talk about my hopes to my spouse/partner"; and "I have a job that allows me fulfil my hopes". In the Spanish sample the strongest predictors were "I have a job that allows me fulfil my hopes"; "I trust in God" and "I motivate my friends". Overall, although there were differences in the specific activities predicting hope for the two samples, for both the South African and Spanish participants these activities entailed motivational/agency, the religious/spiritual and relational dimensions, similar to Krafft and Walker's (2018b) findings among Swiss and Germans participants. As indicated previously, the fact the spiritual/religious dimension ("I pray/meditate") was the strongest predictor of perceived hope for the South African sample is in line with the religious nature of South African society (see Loubser & Kotzé, 2017). Because Spanish people consider themselves as believers but do not practise any religious activity, it seems reasonable that for this sample "trust in God" was one of the most powered predictors of hope; but, unlike the South African sample, religious activities like "pray" have no effect on Spanish people's hope levels.

Further, having a job is extremely important to South Africans owing to difficult economic circumstances and high levels of unemployment. Thus, being employed may support positive future expectancies and consequently perceived hope. This seems similar to the Spanish context, as Spain has one of the highest rates of unemployment among European countries. In fact, the CIS (2018) data showed that the majority of Spanish people viewed unemployment as the main problem of the country. Thus, as in the South African sample, having a job is a powerful predictor of hope and of positive future expectations.

As far as relational sources of hope are concerned, Krafft and Walker (2018b) similarly reported that these activities are very important predictors of perceived hope among Swiss and German samples. For the South African sample in our study, talking to a spouse was one of the strongest predictors and for Spanish people another relational source of hope "I motivate my friends" was a relevant predictor of hope. This is congruent with the consideration of Spain as a very sociable country in which relationships with friends are an important part of the Spanish lifestyle, and thus in line with Krafft and Walker's (2018b) findings.

The fourth aim of our study was to examine the role of perceived hope and dispositional hope in predicting flourishing in the two samples. Regarding the relationship between perceived hope and flourishing, our regression analysis indicated that perceived hope was a significant predictor of flourishing for both groups. In terms of dispositional hope, only agency was a significant predictor of perceived hope for both samples. The other components of Snyder's model (global dispositional hope and pathways thinking) were not significant predictors. The only difference between the South African and Spanish regression models were the different prediction values of these variables. Specifically, agency was the strongest predictor of flourishing for the Spanish sample, while we found an inverse pattern for the South African sample. Therefore, our results suggest that flourishing is predicted by the same hope-related variables for participants from these different cultures. However, results should be interpreted with caution because we only confirmed measurement invariance of the PHS between the two samples, and not the DHS. Overall, the results seem to point to the universality of hope as an existential human need that is central to the experience of well-being (see Krafft et al., 2021 for a recent review).

While a large body of existing research reported that dispositional hope is a good predictor of flourishing (Munoz et al., 2020) and specifically of life satisfaction (Diener & Chan, 2011; Gunderman, 2008; Keyes, 2007; Snyder, 1994, 2000; Snyder et al., 1991), our findings seem to indicate the possibility that other conceptualizations of hope could add to understanding flourishing. Specifically, perceived hope contributed to predicting flourishing in both samples in the current study, in addition to only one component of dispositional hope. Our results thus support Krafft et al.'s (2021) finding that perceived hope might be an important underlying factor in understanding well-being, regardless of cultural context.

Finally, regarding our last goal, sociodemographic variables in our data showed that in the South African sample the only predictor in the multiple regression model was the educational level, but in Spain the only predictor was professional status. This difference may be due partially to the fact that in Spain most people below 50 years old have at least high school education level, and a large part of this population has a university degree (National Statistical Institute (INE), 2020b) which could mean that educational level is not a good predictor of flourishing because it is not a good discriminant variable in the Spanish population. In the South African context, university education is still not accessible to the majority of the population partly due socio-economic factors and problematic basic education (Walton et al., 2015). It can thus be expected that educational level would be a strong predictor of flourishing in this context.

Despite potentially valuable findings, we acknowledge some limitations of our study. First, we had a limited number of participants, which may have made it impossible to investigate the measurement invariance of the DHS. Consequently, any comparison between the two samples using this scale has to be taken with caution and further research is needed to confirm our results. Second, in both samples the majority of participants were female, which limits generalization. Finally, the participants in the South African sample were not demographically representative of the South African population, which is predominately Black. The results should therefore not be generalized to the South African population as a whole. However, our study has also some strengths. It is one of the few studies to examine hope and its role in well-being in two different countries, and it is the first between Spain and South Africa. This study also implemented more than one conceptualization of hope and considered the complementarity of both. This is has allowed us to understand and explore in more depth possible cultural differences and communalities in the dynamics of hope and flourishing. Finally, by identifying the important sources of hope for both samples, it provides some guidance for developing interventions to strengthen hope in each cultural context.

## 8.10 Conclusion

In this study, we found higher levels of hope in a South African sample in comparison to a Spanish sample. We also found that the two samples differed in terms of endorsement of specific hope activities, but that for both samples, spiritual, motivational and relational activities were important predictors of hope. Perceived hope and agency were both significant predictors of flourishing for the two samples. Since perceived hope was a strong predictor of flourishing for both samples, our study supports the notion that perceived hope may be a universal motivational need applicable across cultures. Our results also suggest that, while there may be differences in levels of hope between the South African and Spanish samples, hope remains an important construct in the experience of human flourishing. This adds to extant knowledge on universal and specific characteristics of hope and paves the way for further cross-cultural understanding of this important human need.

## References

cognition. Journal of Well-being Assessment, 4, 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-020- 00030-4

Valle Flores-Lucas is Associate Professor at Valladolid University, in the psychology department. She obtained her PHD (Psychology) from University Autónoma of Madrid in 2001. She led the Postgraduate course on Positive Psychology and Humour sense at Valladolid University. She Her research work has been centred on two main research lines: developmental language and communication disorders, and in the last years, she started another research line in the field of Positive Psychology mainly in the study of hope and its relations with other positive strengths and its applications on education. She is member of the Spanish Positive Psychology Society.

Raquel Martínez-Sinovas is an assistant professor University and sports psychologist. She has an international Ph.D. "Cum Laude" in Psychology by Valladolid University. She has a postgraduate formation as specialist in Positive Psychology and Sense of Humor from the University of Valladolid. Her research has been focussed in hope in educative fields.

Raúl López-Benítez is an Associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Valladolid University, Spain. He has a Ph. D. in Psychology by Granada University and his research examines how humor is related to psychological processes, as emotion or cognition in adults, and he is starting to research in other strengths like hope.

Tharina Guse is a counselling psychologist and obtained an MA (Counselling Psychology) degree from the Potchefstroom University (now North-West University) in 1989. She was in fulltime private practice for the next 15 years providing psychotherapy for children, adolescents and adults. In 2003 she obtained her PhD (Psychology) from Potchefstroom University. She returned to academia in 2005 and joined the University of Johannesburg. Since April 2018 she is a professor and Head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Pretoria. Currently she serves on the Professional Board for Psychology of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). She is also President of the recently founded South African Positive Psychology Association (SAPPA). Her research focuses are on positive psychology in general and in particular on psychosocial well-being, positive psychology interventions and psychological strengths such as hope and gratitude. Closely aligned with this broad focus she also conducts research on the application of hypnosis for the promotion of mental health and well-being.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

included in the chapter s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not ' statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Chapter 9 Mastering the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis: From Anxiety to Hope

Andreas M. Krafft, JohnBosco Chika Chukwuorji, Rajneesh Choubisa, Stella Comte, Fabien Fenouillet, Valle Flores-Lucas, Tharina Guse, Elżbieta Kasprzak, Charles Martin-Krumm, Helena Agueda Marujo, Chitra Nair, Mark Sinclair, Alena Slezackova, Patryk Stecz, and Olga Varsos

A. M. Krafft (✉)

Institute of Systemic Management and Public Governance, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
J. C. Chukwuorji Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

R. Choubisa Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, (BITS) Pilani, Pilani, India

S. Comte Department of Psychology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

F. Fenouillet Interdisciplinary Laboratory in Neuroscience, Physiology and Psychology: Learning, Physical Activity and Health, Université Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France

V. Flores-Lucas Department of Psychology, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

T. Guse Department of Psychology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

E. Kasprzak Department of Work and Organisational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Kazimierz Wielki University of Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland

C. Martin-Krumm

Vulnerability, Capability, and Recovery Laboratory, Ecole de Psychologues Praticiens de Paris, Paris, France

H. A. Marujo Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Politicas, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

C. Nair

K. N. M. Government Arts and Science College Kanjiramkulam, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India

© The Author(s) 2023

A. M. Krafft et al. (eds.), Hope across cultures, Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology 14, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24412-4\_9

Abstract This chapter presents selected results of the Hope Barometer survey during the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. Against the background of the intense feelings of stress and anxiety in these times of crisis, we first review current theories on psychological stress and coping, present results of our empirical studies during the pandemic and then focus on the role and importance of hope in relation to positive coping styles, well-being, and stress-related personal growth. A central aim of our research is to investigate the role of culture in the perception of stress and hope (as the counterpart of anxiety) and in the choice of different coping strategies, as evident in their relationship to experiences of well-being and personal growth. We compared the results of 11 countries with cross-sectional data collected in November 2019 (N = 9092), November 2020 (N = 9536) and November 2021 (N = 9093). After reporting general findings, we engage in an analysis of the most striking differences between the countries. Our results revealed that a majority of the participants experienced moderate stress levels, but with significant differences between the samples and notable changes between 2020 and 2021. Most people, especially in more collectivistic countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, India, and Portugal, remained hopeful, applied positive coping strategies, and enjoyed moderate to high levels of well-being and personal growth. Our findings highlight the importance of emotion-focused, social, and religious coping sources, besides problem-focused coping, for mastering the crisis, which are predominant in collectivistic societies.

## 9.1 Introduction

During the years 2020 and 2021, the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has transformed many aspects of society resulting not only in a global health but also in an economic, social, and political crisis with profound implications for people's lives. In order to reduce the number of infections, governments around the globe have implemented several measures, such as general lockdowns, reducing economic and social activities to a minimum, temporary closing of education and cultural institutions, restricting mobility, confining people to stay at home and to work remotely, imposing social distancing to avoid close contact and determining other

M. Sinclair

A. Slezackova

O. Varsos Centre for Positive Change, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Mentor Education, Windsor, VIC, Australia

Department of Medical Psychology and Psychosomatics, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

P. Stecz

Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychopathology, Institute of Psychology, University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland

far-reaching safety procedures and limitations to public life. The threat to one's physical health combined with experiences of social isolation, economic hardships and uncertainty about the future have provoked many kinds of fears as well as feelings of anxiety and helplessness but have also inspired new energies and hopes.

 Beyond the obvious burdens on the physical and mental health of the population, one main question has been how people reacted to the threats, challenges and uncertainties and what they did in order to cope with stressful situations and mitigate their negative effects (Agha, 2021; Ahuja, 2021; Bhattacharjee & Ghosh, 2021; Budimir et al., 2021; Engelbrecht et al., 2021; Garbóczy et al., 2021; Guszkowska & Dąbrowska-Zimakowska, 2022; Kar et al., 2021; Minahan et al., 2021; Morales-Rodríguez, 2021; Polizzi et al., 2020; Rogowska et al., 2021; Szkody et al., 2021).

From another line of research, several authors have highlighted the importance of hope in seemingly hopeless situations, especially when uncertainty regarding the future is high and perceived personal control is low (Averill et al., 1990; Bruininks & Malle, 2005; Scioli & Biller, 2009; Tennen et al., 2002; Tong et al., 2010). Erikson (1959) has recognized that hope emerges out of fear and anxiety, and understood it as the first and fundamental human virtue necessary for our psychosocial development. Hope is not only the counterpart of fear and anxiety but also of despair, cynicism, apathy, helplessness, and dejection (Govier, 2011; Marcel, 1951).

Several authors have underlined the role of (individualistic and collectivistic) cultures in the perception of stress and in the appraisal and choice of diverse coping strategies (Aldwin, 2004; Chun et al., 2006; Heppner et al., 2006; Hu et al., 2018). Furthermore, Averill et al. (1990) as well as Averill and Sundararajan (2005) investigated the nature and role of hope across individualistic and collectivistic cultures, concluding that people in different countries differ not only with regard to the kind of targets they hope for, but also with regard to the actions performed in order to fulfill them.

Most of the current psychological research during the pandemic was centered on the study of stress, anxiety, coping strategies, and their positive and negative outcomes related to mental disorders. The focus of the Hope Barometer during these crisis years was to investigate the phenomenon of hope in relation to perceived stress, coping styles, stress-related growth, and well-being across countries. Based on Lazarus' (1966, 1990) transactional and dynamic theory of stress and coping as well as contemporary research findings demonstrating the predominance of posttraumatic growth after stressful experiences (Armeli et al., 2001; Linley et al., 2008; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004), the aim of this chapter is to explore the role of hope in mastering stressful situations and the way people in different countries not only coped with, but also experienced personal growth as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. In our study we therefore assessed the levels and changes of people's perceived stress, hope, and well-being in relation to specific coping strategies and their association with areas of personal growth.

## 9.2 Theoretical Background

## 9.2.1 Psychological Stress: Between Anxiety and Hope

Recent studies during the COVID-19-pandemic in several countries revealed that the sources and levels of stress varied significantly between different population groups. The most important sources of stress were the fear of becoming infected, worries related to the financial and economic consequences of the lockdowns, being isolated from family and friends, the daily bad and fake news in the mass media, and the general uncertainty about the future (Agha, 2021; Taylor et al., 2020a). Most studies showed that the levels of stress were more pronounced among young people and individuals with lower financial and social resources (Bhattacharjee & Ghosh, 2021; Kar et al., 2021; Maia & Dias, 2020; Rehman et al., 2021). Some studies also found substantial changes between the first and the second waves of COVID-19. Not only did levels of perceived stress increase and levels of life-satisfaction decrease, but significant changes in coping styles also occurred (Rogowska et al., 2021).