HOPEFUL: Helping Others Promotes Engagement and Fulfillment

ABSTRACT

It is important to know how helping affects helpers and sustains ongoing helping, for if helping is burdensome and derails further helping, society suffers. We propose the HOPEFUL [Helping Other (Groups) Promotes Engagement and FULfillment] model of intergroup helping in which helping between groups leads to individual and social-psychological changes in helpers, which both sustain further helping commitment. In the model, helping increases self-efficacy and psychological well-being, which lead to benevolent support. Increased self-efficacy boosts psychological well-being. Helping increases hope, which, along with the group-based effects of social identification and collective efficacy, promote social change activism. Most importantly, HOPEFUL envisages ways for disadvantaged people and groups to be involved in helping without necessarily undermining progress towards equality.

KEYWORDS:

• Helping
• psychological well-being
• social identification
• collective action

Helping has attracted long-standing interest in psychology, and there is, unlike some other important topics in psychology, widespread agreement about what it is. Thus, Dovidio (1984) defines helping behaviours as “voluntary acts performed with the intent to provide some benefit to another person” (p. 364) and most other authorities agree in broad terms. Understandably, the key questions of interest in the psychology of helping have been why people help and how helping affects recipients of the help. The focus of this paper, however, is on how helping affects helpers and whether those effects inspire further helping. Is it true, for example, that it is better to “give than receive”, and is that because giving is good for you, or perhaps (as we discuss below) that receiving is harmful, or both? Are the effects of helping as positive as the adage suggests? If there are positive effects for helpers from helping are those entirely captured by individuals in the form of bolstered well-being or does helping sustain long-term engagement for the benefit of others?

There is certainly good reason to believe that some effects of helping are not positive. People involved in helping others may experience negative effects of being exposed to other people’s trauma (Willems et al., 2020) including compassion fatigue (Donnellan et al., 2024 define compassion fatigue as “the reduced capacity to care for people due to prolonged exposure to the trauma/suffering of these people”, p. 3). An instance of this is documented by Shah et al. (2007) who found that 100% of a sample of humanitarian aid workers in India had symptoms of traumatic stress. Similarly, in an Australian survey of telephone counsellors, 70% of respondents had concerning levels of compassion fatigue (O’Sullivan & Whelan, 2011). Burnout of volunteers and activists is also a problem entailing exhaustion physically, mentally, and emotionally of people with prolonged exposure to emotionally demanding situations (Moreno‐Jiménez & Villodres, 2010). Activist burnout can be due to the additional stressors of retaliation against the activist and conflict within the movement leading to disillusionment (Gorski, 2019). Despite that, there is evidence that past helping is positively related to future helping: Volunteer status had a strong effect on volunteering 10 years later in a study by Son and Wilson (2012). Therefore, helping sustains further helping but we do not know why this works.

This paper presents a dual pathway model of helping that explains how and why helping others leads to further engagement. In the model, helping increases psychological well-being through boosting self-efficacy and the enhanced well-being stimulates further helping. Helping also increases personal hope. This constitutes the first pathway. In the second pathway of the model, helping increases a sense of connectedness with others arising from positive social identification that promotes social change activism. Increased hope from helping others also leads to collective action. With conflict in so many parts of the world, millions of displaced people, and a world reeling from the aftermath of a worldwide pandemic, help is more needed than ever. Thus, it is important to explore how and why helping helps the helper and stimulates more engagement.

Although it seems natural that people should help where they can, helping can be problematic for the recipients of help. Empirical studies over a range of conditions and contexts show the potential for the harmful effects of helping on recipients: for example, the studies of Fisher and Nadler (1976) on help from high versus low resource donors; Schneider et al. (1996) research on unsolicited help; studies by Nadler and Halabi (2006) on help by high compared to low status groups, and on the effect of perceived stability and legitimacy of status relations on reactions to help; and Alvarez et al. (2018) work comparing help that encourages autonomy with help that fosters dependence (see also Halabi et al., 2016).

Parallel to those insights, social psychologists have argued that positive relations between advantaged and disadvantaged groups can actually exacerbate problems by undermining efforts to seek long-term change in unequal social relations (Dixon et al., 2007; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Thus, while research suggests that positive contact can produce positive relations between advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), those positive relations may also decrease support for collective action for social change in the disadvantaged group (Dixon et al., 2007; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Evidence for this includes research among Black South African students (Cakal et al., 2011), Latino Americans (Tausch et al., 2015), and Israeli Arabs (Saguy et al., 2009). Therefore, helping between groups may be problematic. In the next section, we define intergroup helping and related concepts.

Definitions

Nadler (2016, p. 64) defines intergroup helping relations as the “giving and seeking and receiving of help across group boundaries”. In this paper, we focus on the giving of help across group boundaries. Tajfel and Turner (1979) see the group as “a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and of their membership of it” (p. 40). Categorising self in social terms gives a basis for identification of self in a social context. Tajfel and Turner go on to define social identity as consisting of “aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from the social categories to which he perceives himself as belonging” (p. 40).

In self-categorisation theory (SCT: Turner et al., 1987), categorisations of self can be based on an identity as a human; on group membership defining one’s social identity; and categorisations between oneself and other ingroup members that define one’s personal identity. For Turner and Reynolds (2001), the process of self-categorisation is the basic mechanism underpinning group behaviours, such as group stereotyping, co-operation, outgroup discrimination, conformity to social norms, and collective action. Collective action occurs “when a group member acts as a representative of the group and where the action is directed at improving conditions of the group as a whole” (Wright, 2009, p. 860) but may also happen when people take action on behalf of another group.

Thus, intergroup helping can be seen as an interaction between people or groups of people whose social identities are both different and salient at the time of helping. This contrasts with ingroup helping where the benefactor and recipient of help share a common salient social identity. The focus of this paper is on intergroup helping for two main reasons. Although much of the literature on the benefits of volunteering and activism is analysed at an interpersonal level, helping interaction is often at an intergroup level (van Leeuwen & Zagefka, 2017), for instance, between a healthy socially functioning volunteer and a socially isolated person with a disability requiring assistance. Thus, intergroup helping may be much more prevalent than it seems and this aspect of the helping relationship is often neglected. Furthermore, much of the literature on intergroup helping focuses on its negative outcomes especially for recipient groups, however this model focuses on positive outcomes of intergroup relations.

In Dovidio’s (1984) definition, helping embraces actions intended to promote the welfare of close others, unrelated others, and society in general, connecting to the distinct albeit interrelated ideas of volunteering and activism. von Bonsdorff and Rantanen (2011) defined volunteering as “an activity which involves spending time, unpaid, doing something that aims to benefit the community in general, its individuals, or specified subsets of community members who are in need” (p. 162), and J.-N. Kim and Sriramesh (2009) defined activism as “the coordinated activity of a group that organizes voluntarily in an effort to solve problems that threaten the common interest of members of that group” (p. 88). The differences between volunteering and activism emphasised by some researchers include that volunteering is service-oriented, working within the given social framework whereas activism is directed at changing the structure of society (Gilster, 2012); that volunteering focuses on the individual whereas activism is concerned with institutions (Musick & Wilson, 2008); and that volunteering is motivated by compassion whereas activism is motivated by a desire for justice (Musick & Wilson, 2008).

Further, Thomas and McGarty (2018, see also Hoskin et al., 2019) made a distinction between benevolent support that attempts to reduce others’ suffering through providing money, goods, or services, and activist support that involves confronting social injustice. Benevolent support is aimed at directly alleviating victim suffering through addressing immediate problems, whereas activist support challenges social or political power that causes victim suffering. The first approach assumes that equality can be achieved through harmony, upward mobility, and the benevolence of the advantaged. The second approach advocates social competition and collective action especially by the disadvantaged group, which may precipitate conflict (Thomas & McGarty, 2017). Most of the evidence for our model comes from research on the benefits of volunteering and activism, which has focused on interpersonal helping. In the HOPEFUL model, the key link drawn from research on intergroup helping is the path from social identification to social change activism. We discuss the evidence base after looking at the background for the model.

Assumptions, aims, and assertions

The HOPEFUL model of intergroup helping proposes that helping increases psychological well-being through increased self-efficacy, leading to more helping. It also leads to greater personal hope. Helping leads to more helping through increased connection with others and increased hope regarding the recipient group. Thus, the model contains two main pathways from the act of helping to further helping. In the first pathway, helping increases individual effects for the helper, which in turn leads to long-term engagement in helping. The individual effects are concerned with feeling good, being satisfied with life, experiencing life as being meaningful (Diener, 1984), feeling efficacious (Bandura, 1997), and having hope for the future (Snyder et al., 1991), or what we might describe in general terms as a sense of fulfilment. Helping makes helpers feel better in themselves and more positive about future. Having a sense of fulfilment from increased well-being motivates helpers to help more. Helpers will feel better and be more willing to help again in the future by coming to feel that they have been effective in doing (contributing to self-efficacy) as the result of the helping.

In the second pathway, helping generates what we will term group-based effects, which refer to social psychological outcomes that stem from membership in social groups and, in particular, from a sense of belonging and connectedness derived from positively valued social identities. The group-based outcomes generate engagement to reduce inequality. We are especially interested in the possibility that those group-based effects can help unite members of disadvantaged and advantaged groups to work to reduce disadvantage (Gee & McGarty, 2013b, 2013b; McGarty et al., 2012) while minimising problematic side effects. Bonevski et al. (2014) defined socially disadvantaged group as “socially, culturally, or financially disadvantaged compared to the majority of society” (p. 2). A desire for social change is also stimulated by being more hopeful about the future, especially for the group being helped.

We present a general theoretical model of the individual and group-based outcomes of being a helper. Our model acknowledges and builds on earlier models (we discuss earlier models proposed by Weinstein & Ryan, 2010; Brown et al., 2012, below). The HOPEFUL [Helping Other (Groups) Promotes Engagement and FULfillment] model goes further than previous models though in proposing that helping across group boundaries can promote individual benefits (chiefly improved psychological well-being) for the helper that are likely to sustain benevolent engagement to continue helping, as well as yield group-based effects (in the form of a transformation of the social self) that sustain action to change the world.

The aim of the paper is to propose that volunteering (and charitable giving) and activism are related products of an act of help activated through different psychological mechanisms. We assert that there is a dual pathway from helping to further long-term helping through a first pathway of increased psychological well-being and a second pathway of increased connectedness and hope. Increased well-being from helping promotes benevolent support, and social identification, group efficacy, and hope from helping drive action towards social change. Thus, volunteering and activism are intimately related and interconnected ways of addressing inequality.

There are almost certainly boundaries to the application of the model. In this regard, it is useful to first consider the positionality of the authors. Both authors have lived and worked in one wealthy industrialised country and are drawn from the majority English-speaking community in that society. Both authors have seen themselves as distant witnesses of historical mass violence and have been struck by and intrigued by the resilience of survivors and the generosity of many of those survivors to help others. This shared interest has been concentrated in relation to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. The first author has had the experience of being a member of a disadvantaged social group and of improving her own position and that of others through helping. Thus, she may have a bias towards literature showing or expounding positive outcomes from helping rather than negative outcomes. Therefore, in the process of reviewing the literature, she deliberately sought out studies, especially experiments, that showed non-significant positive outcomes or negative outcomes of helping for helpers.

There are two classes of limitations to the application of the model. Major limitations are that most of the research backing the model was done in the West and that the model will probably apply less in situations of coercive control. Minor or secondary factors are to do with the motivation of the helper, their relatedness to the recipient, and the perceived impact of helping.

We expect the model to apply in Western nations in Europe, North America, and Oceania as most of the research we have reviewed was done in these countries. For instance, the links between helping and hope, helping and group efficacy, and helping and social connectedness were based completely on research done in the West. The links between helping and self-efficacy and helping and eudaimonia each had only one study done in a non-Western context. Research backing the links from helping to social identity to collective action included marginalised group samples, as did the link between hope and collective action, however, the studies came mainly from Western samples. The relationship between helping and hedonic well-being had the highest ratio of non-Western to Western research with 10 out of 34 studies conducted in either Africa, Asia, or internationally. The key relationships have not been tested in non-Western contexts and so we are cautious about extrapolating the model to those contexts.

Relatedly, we expect the relationships to be stronger when helpers are relatively free from coercion and where they perceive themselves to exercise agency and freedom of action in relation to their helping. The model will apply in contexts where helpers are relatively free to choose to help and where the risks of helping are low. Broadly speaking, if helpers perceive helping to be a matter over which they can exercise no agency – that, in effect, they had no choice but to help – then the effects of helping may be muted. Similarly, where helping is risky or exposes helpers to high levels of trauma (e.g., during mass violence), the sustaining effects of helping on future helping may be disengaged by the negative effects of the burden of helping. Limited agency and traumatic events can be experienced in all societies, but they may be especially prevalent in repressive or authoritarian societies and during conflict or in post-conflict societies.

This is an important caveat. The HOPEFUL model may be less applicable in contexts where help is most badly needed. Again, we do not know that this limitation holds but in the absence of evidence testing the relationship it is wrong to assume them (there is, however, some evidence that freedom of choice for helpers can determine whether they benefit from helping, see Weinstein & Ryan, 2010).

There are also some more specific limiting factors for the applicability of the model. Well-being of helpers has been found to be higher after charitable giving when they perceive that their helping had a positive impact (see Aknin, Dunn, Whillans, et al., 2013). The model is more likely to apply to situations where the helper feels a connection to the benefactor as charitable giving where the helper feels connected to the benefactor results in greater well-being for helpers than when the connection is low (see Aknin, Dunn, Sandstrom, et al., 2013). These factors relate to possible preconditions for helping to generate benefits, to which we now turn.

Conditions that may influence the effect of helping on outcomes for the helper

We anticipate both individual and group-based benefits for helpers; however, these outcomes may not be constant across all contingencies. We propose a set of key factors or conditions that may make these effects more likely. The conditional factors relate to what motivates people to help, who they are helping, who is doing the helping, and what is the perceived impact of helping. It is important to note that although these conditions may be limiting factors to the applicability of the model, we do not propose them as part of the model itself in that they do not constitute theoretical claims derived from the model.

Benefits of helping are amplified by autonomous motivation

Weinstein and Ryan (2010) showed that helpers who help from free choice experienced greater well-being than helpers who are motivated by external contingencies. Weinstein and Ryan applied Deci and Ryan (1985, 2008) self-determination theory (SDT) to prosocial behaviour. According to SDT, people’s actions vary according to the amount of free choice they have in performing the action, and the theory makes a distinction between autonomous motivation concerning actions that arise out of oneself with an internal, causal origin and controlled motivation, which arises from self-imposed pressures, or from external events or controls (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). In the results of three experiments and one diary study by Weinstein and Ryan, life satisfaction, positive affect, vitality, self-esteem, self-efficacy, relatedness, and autonomy were all increased when the helper was autonomously motivated but not when driven by controlled motivation.

In a U.S. diary study by B. P. H. Hui and Kogan (2018b), autonomy moderated the effect of helping on hedonic well-being. Interestingly, they found that participants with low trait autonomy had a stronger relationship between helping others and well-being. They argue that autonomy (competence or relatedness) can moderate the relationship between prosocial behaviour and well-being in one of the two ways. According to their deprivation model, people with low levels of autonomy (competence or relatedness) gain more from acting pro-socially if these acts satisfy basic psychological needs. According to the sensitization model, those with higher autonomy (competence or relatedness) benefit more from prosocial behaviour as they are more sensitive to the potential rewards of helping others.

Benefits of helping are amplified by sense of connection to beneficiary

The benefits from helping others may depend on connection to the beneficiary. Positive affect was higher and negative affect lower after spending money on a cause or person to which people had a high connection, compared to spending on a cause or recipient with whom they had low connection (Lok et al., 2020). In three experiments manipulating sense of social connection to the beneficiary of prosocial spending, Aknin, Dunn, Sandstrom, et al. (2013) reported that giving with high connection to the recipient, compared to giving with low connection, led to greater psychological well-being. A particular type of social connection is solidarity, which Reicher and Haslam (2009) see as “multiple, reciprocal, and additive acts of support” (p. 292). Solidarity with disadvantaged groups has been associated with hope in the context of intractable conflict (Halperin & Gross, 2011) and hope and efficacy in advantaged groups who were supporting social change for disadvantaged groups (Greenaway et al., 2016).

Benefits of helping are amplified when helpers have low resources

Low resources of the helper (low competence, low life satisfaction, low social connectedness) have been identified as moderating the relationship between helping and its benefits. B. P. H. Hui and Kogan (2018a) found that low levels of competence moderated the relationship between helping and increased psychological well-being. Analyses of large-scale surveys by Binder and Freytag (2013) and Magnani and Zhu (2018) indicated that only people low in satisfaction with life benefitted psychologically from volunteering. Poor social integration appears also to have a moderating role on the link between volunteering and its benefits (Musick et al., 1999; Piliavin & Siegl, 2007).

Benefits of helping are amplified by perceived impact of helping

Prosocial impact is perceiving that one’s help has, or will, make a positive contribution to others (Aknin, Dunn, Whillans, et al., 2013). Two experiments by Aknin, Dunn, Whillans, et al. (2013) found that psychological well-being was higher after giving when the perceived impact of helping was high. Similarly, Lok et al. (2020) found participants who wrote about a time when they spent money on a cause or person with high impact had higher positive affect than participants who were not able to see the difference their spending made. In a study by Wilkins et al. (2018), online activism led to greater engagement when there was high perceived impact of the action than when the perceived impact was low.

The HOPEFUL model

The HOPEFUL model is shown in Figure 1. The model starts with acts of helping. We assume that those acts will be multiply determined by a range of prior factors relating to the societal and normative context, moral convictions, values, ideologies, and circumstances. The impact of these factors is beyond the scope of a model that focuses on the effects rather than the causes of helping (with the exception of ideology, which forms part of supporter group and opinion-based identities). Fortunately, those causal factors are well understood in terms of the rich theoretical resources that have been available for volunteering (e.g., Clary & Snyder, 1999) and activism (e.g., van Zomeren, 2013; Van Zomeren et al., 2012) and that continue to grow (Radke et al., 2020). In other words, we know a great deal about why helping occurs, the HOPEFUL model focuses on what happens next – especially in relation to helpers and their ongoing engagement with communities.

Figure 1. The HOPEFUL model.

Literature on volunteer sustainability has identified a number of factors related to volunteer retention such as volunteer satisfaction and motivation (Harmon‐Darrow & Xu, 2018). The satisfaction of SDT’s three basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness has also been explored as a factor in volunteer satisfaction and retention (Haivas et al., 2013). In the HOPEFUL model, competence (self-efficacy) and relatedness (social connectedness) are included. Motivation for helping is outside the scope of the model; however, autonomous motivation is suggested as a condition that may affect outcomes of helping for the helper and their further engagement.

The model comprising two main routes. The first route contains two paths; the path from helping to individual benefits of psychological well-being, self-efficacy, and hope and the path from individual benefits to benevolent support. The second main route contains two paths; the path from helping to group-based outcomes including social identification, social connectedness, and group-based efficacy and the path from social identification and group efficacy to social change activism. A third route represents a path from hope for the target group to social change activism. The above concepts will be defined in more detail in the following sections.

We compare the HOPEFUL model to the models proposed and tested by Weinstein and Ryan (2010) and Brown et al. (2012) to highlight similarities and differences between the HOPEFUL model and previous models. Brown and colleagues outline a model where the act of volunteering enhances the psychological resources of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and social connectedness, which in turn enhance life satisfaction. They tested this model using data from a large-scale survey in Australia and found evidence consistent with the proposed pathways. Although Brown and colleagues found self-esteem was a mediator, Musick and Wilson (2003) did not find that self-esteem mediated the relationship between volunteering and depression. Due to the mixed evidence, the HOPEFUL model does not incorporate a mediating role for self-esteem. It also includes group effects of helping as there is evidence that helping increases, for instance, social identification (Vestergren et al., 2018) and collective efficacy (Cocking & Drury, 2004), which lead to collective action.

Weinstein and Ryan’s (2010) model proposes that motives for helping that are autonomous and reflect the helper’s personal choice result in more benefit for helpers and recipients than controlled motives arising from external pressures or controls. Weinstein and Ryan proposed that prosocial acts that are autonomously motivated satisfy the basic psychological needs of competence (as helpers are bringing positive benefit to others), relatedness (because helping enhances bonding to others and brings affirmative reactions from others), and autonomy (as volitional helping is an expression of the helper’s values and beliefs). Their model further proposes that the satisfaction of the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy by autonomously motivated helping increases well-being in the helper. Weinstein and Ryan reported four studies testing these propositions, which comprise almost the entirety of the empirical literature on this specific topic and found support for all aspects of the model. The HOPEFUL model, however, proposes that benefits of helping can lead to more helping (see Snippe et al., 2017) and does not specify moderators, although we suggest a set of conditions including autonomous motivation that may affect outcomes of helping for the helper.

There are similarities between the Brown et al. and Weinstein and Ryan models in that both see the act of helping as increasing competence (self-efficacy in Brown et al., 2012 model) and relatedness (social connectedness for Brown et al., 2012) that in turn increase well-being. In the HOPEFUL model, self-efficacy and social connectedness are also understood as outcomes of helping. As in Brown et al. (2012) model, HOPEFUL places self-efficacy as intervening between helping and well-being but also includes hope as an outcome of helping because of evidence that helping increases the helper’s hope (see Ai et al., 2013), and hope can lead to activity towards social change (see Wlodarczyk et al., 2017). The HOPEFUL model expands on Brown et al. (2012) model by increasing the range of anticipated group-based outcomes to include social identification (Vestergren et al., 2018) and group-based efficacy (Cocking & Drury, 2004) and including affect and eudaimonia as individual benefits of helping (see Müller et al., 2014; Son & Wilson, 2012). Weinstein and Ryan (2010) focus on motivation as a moderator of the helping and well-being relationship. The HOPEFUL model does not specify moderators as there is fair evidence for most of the pathways from helping to anticipated outcomes and further helping. An important contribution of the HOPEFUL model is that it explains how helping leads to more helping through individual benefits and group-based outcomes to helpers.

The model, shown in Figure 1, is best understood as comprising two main routes. “Help is its Own Reward” represents the path from helping to individual benefits and “Staying Engaged” represents the path from individual benefits to benevolent support. The act of help increases the individual benefits of hope and self-efficacy. Psychological well-being is also increased by helping. Self-efficacy boosts psychological well-being. In turn, psychological well-being boosts benevolent support (Staying Engaged) describing a potentially recursive relationship between helping others and individual benefits. Although we have presented the model as a linear model, we acknowledge that the relationship between helping and further helping may be circular.

“Creating Commitment” represents the path from helping to a cluster of group-based outcomes including social identification, social connectedness, and group-based efficacy. “Sustaining Commitment” represents the path whereby shared identity and group-based efficacy stimulated by the act of helping across groups transform supportive acts into group action to redress disadvantage. The above concepts will be defined in more detail in the following sections.

“Reimagining the Future” is a speculative route anticipated in the HOPEFUL model from the individual benefit of hope in a group context to social change activism. Evidence consistent with the possibility of individual hope leading to collective action is presented following the treatment of the two routes through individual benefits and group-based benefits to further engagement.

Alt Text: A flow diagram showing the proposed effect of helping on the helper in terms of individual benefits leading to benevolent support and group-based effects leading to social change activism.

Primary pathways in the HOPEFUL model

Helping others generates individual benefits: help is its own reward

The HOPEFUL model predicts that helping increases self-efficacy, hope, and psychological well-being. It also predicts an indirect boost to psychological well-being through self-efficacy. We now look at evidence for these relations.

Helping others increases self-efficacy

Weinstein and Ryan (2010) suggest that prosocial action satisfies the basic psychological need of competence. Competence, which is “feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment” (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7) is very close to the concept of self-efficacy. Therefore, helping others will enhance one’s feelings of being able to act effectively, which relates to self-efficacy. Bandura (1997, p. 3) defined self-efficacy as “one’s belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments” and noted it entails perceived ability to regulate thoughts, feelings, motives, and actions, or to change the environment.

Evidence suggests that helping others enhances self-efficacy. In a longitudinal study, status as a volunteer predicted self-efficacy (Müller et al., 2014). In experimental studies, helping increased competence in helpers (Martela & Ryan, 2016; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Self-efficacy was correlated with volunteering (Brown et al., 2012), activism (Fenn et al., 2021; Zanbar, 2018), and community participation (Yoshinaga et al., 2014). Activism and activist identity were correlated with a scale that included competence in Klar and Kasser’s (2009, Study 1). Thus, research suggests both a causal and a correlational relationship between prosocial behaviour and self-efficacy in the helper giving support for the path in the HOPEFUL model seen in Figure 1 of Help is its Own Reward, where helping across group boundaries generates individual benefits for the helper.

Helping others increases hope

Helping others may lead to increased hope for the future as helpers see that their helping improves not only their lives but that of others (Zanbar, 2018). Helping will enhance the perception that one’s actions will have positive outcomes through one’s agency in attaining goals and ability to plan to meet goals, which relate to hope. Snyder et al. (1991) defined hope as “a cognitive set that is based on a reciprocally derived use of successful agency (goal-directed determination) and pathways (planning to meet goals)” (p. 571), arguing that it has an agency component that is confidence in one’s ability to meet goals and a pathway component that is confidence in one’s ability to devise plans to goal attainment. Both components of this definition are clearly cognitive components relating to ability.

In line with Snyder et al.’s treatment, hope has been linked with coping, positive action, and survival especially after mass trauma. Folkman (2010) argues that hope and coping have a reciprocal relationship. Hope sustains coping in the face of stressful events and, in turn, coping fosters hope when it is lacking. Lazarus (1999) suggests that hope galvanises action when positive change is needed. Menninger (1959) concluded that it was hope that enabled WWII concentration camp inmates to survive and that hope comes from the understanding that we are active agents in the world able to influence what happens to ourselves and others. Folkman writes that the importance of hope can be understood by what happens when it is missing. “Hopelessness is a dire state that gives rise to despair, depression, and ultimately loss of will to live” (Folkman, 2010, p. 901).

In a major statement, Hobfoll et al. (2007) concluded that hope was one of the five essential elements for recovery after mass trauma. However, the authors argue that the agentic view of hope is a Western view with little relevance for people in non-Western settings whose lives have been ravaged by trauma, prejudice, and poverty. In the context of community disaster, hope arising from a sense of personal agency may not improve a person’s situation. Resources need to be deployed to restore lives. Hobfoll refers to the work of Antonovsky who viewed hope as an outcome of believing that benevolent and resourceful others will intervene. For example, many people believe that God will intervene or that the government will come to their aid. Thus, hope is a vital human resource; however, researchers have varying opinions about how to define and measure it.

Self-efficacy, hope, and well-being all reflect a positive relationship to experience, however they are different constructs. Whereas self-efficacy is a belief in one’s ability to undertake a specific task, hope is a future oriented expectancy that one’s actions will achieve a future goal. Self-efficacy and well-being are usually assessed in the present, or recently, whereas hope relates to the future (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999). Magaletta and Oliver (1999) compared Snyder’s Hope Scale (1991) to self-efficacy and well-being scales using factor analysis and found that although highly correlated, they were independent of each other. Pleeging et al. (2021) examined the literature on hope and subjective well-being and also found that, although highly correlated, they represented different factors. They found that Snyder’s agency scale and general hopefulness were correlated with life satisfaction and positive affect more highly than Snyder’s pathway scale, and positive expectations were only weakly related to life satisfaction and positive affect. Thus, hope is a distinct concept and as we shall argue later in the paper, it has distinct consequences (see Reimagining the Future).

A number of empirical studies link activism and volunteering to hope. Klar and Kasser (2009, study 1) and Zanbar (2018), both using Snyder’s agency scale, which is one of the two components of Snyder et al.’s hope scale (1991), found hope highly correlated with activism. Also using Snyder’s scale, in a U.S. study by Ferrari et al. (2014) volunteering in the community correlated with pathways but not with agency. In a study using Snyder’s scale (agency and pathways) undertaken by Ai et al. (2013) in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, volunteering was highly correlated with hope. In an analysis of a large-scale survey in the United States by Gilster (2012), volunteering but not activism was negatively correlated with an index of hopelessness that mainly measured agency. In E. S. Kim et al. (2020) U.S. longitudinal study, volunteering predicted less hopelessness in volunteers. Thus, substantial correlational evidence points to a relationship between helping and both hope-agency and hope-pathways, and there is some evidence that volunteering is related to less hopelessness. This evidence also provides support for the path from helping across group boundaries to individual benefits, or Help is its Own Reward in the model represented in Figure 1.

Helping others increases psychological well-being

The concept of well-being relates to how and why people view life as a positive experience. Ryan and Deci (2001, see also Anglim et al., 2020) view well-being as encompassing both a hedonic approach, which emphasises happiness and a eudaimonic view that emphasises human potential and actualisation. In psychology, hedonic well-being pertains to the experience of pleasures of body and mind in contrast to experiences that are unpleasant (Ryan & Deci, 2001). On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being is seen to occur when people are actively engaged in living a life in accordance with their values and their true self (Waterman, 1993). Hedonic well-being has been measured with indices of life satisfaction, (high) positive affect, and (low) negative affect, whereas eudaimonic well-being has been measured using indices of meaning in life, mastery, and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Life satisfaction is “a global assessment of a person’s quality of life according to [their] own chosen criteria” (Shin & Johnson, 1978, p. 478). Positive affect “reflects the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert”, and negative affect is to do with “subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement” (Watson et al., 1988, p. 1063). Eudaimonia refers to a state of having “what is worth desiring and worth having in life” (Telfer, 1980, p. 37). To distinguish hedonic and eudaimonic well-being from physical well-being, we refer to them as components of psychological well-being for the purpose of this paper.

This section covering studies measuring the impact of helping on psychological well-being looks first at the large-scale longitudinal surveys, followed by experiments and cross-sectional surveys, which explore the effect of helping on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. We have grouped studies showing that helping increases happiness with those that link helping with hedonic well-being, although happiness could be either hedonic or eudaimonic well-being.

Helping others increases hedonic well-being

Helping others can increase the helpers’ sense of contentment or satisfaction with their lives in such areas as achievement, personal relationships, health, and safety, as well as their positive feelings such as enthusiasm, alertness, excitement, and determination. It can decrease negative feelings such as distress, nervousness, irritability, and hostility.

Longitudinal studies in the United States (van Willigen, 2000), Britain (Binder & Freytag, 2013; Lawton et al., 2021; Matthews et al., 2021), Germany (Meier & Stutzer, 2008), and across Europe (Hansen et al., 2018) found volunteering positively predicted increased life satisfaction. In a German longitudinal study by Müller et al. (2014) volunteering had a significant effect on positive affect (increased) and negative affect (reduced) but not on life satisfaction. Life satisfaction, positive affect, and happiness were significantly related to volunteer hours in a U.S. longitudinal study by Thoits and Hewitt (2001). In a U.S. representative sample, volunteering was associated with greater positive affect but not increased life satisfaction or lower negative affect (E. S. Kim et al., 2020).

Martela and Ryan (2016) found that participants who were aware that playing a game benefitted people in need experienced greater positive affect than players who were not aware of this outcome. In a quasi-experiment with over 9,000 National Health Service volunteers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dolan et al. (2021) found that volunteers experienced greater life satisfaction compared to those who wanted to volunteer but couldn’t because of lack of demand. Weinstein and Ryan (2010) and B. P. H. Hui and Kogan (2018b), found that autonomous oriented helping increased hedonic well-being rather than helping motivated by pressure and control. However, volunteering by U.S. high school students as part of community service learning compared to being on a wait-list did not predict increased life satisfaction and affect balance in an experimental study. Whillans et al. (2016) make the point that the participants in their study were healthy, happy, and from high-income families and thus, well-being may have been harder to improve. In an experiment by Klar and Kasser (2009, study 3), a brief activist involvement did not increase positive affect or reduce negative affect.

Several experiments by Aknin and colleagues showed positive results of the impact of prosocial giving on hedonic well-being in North America (see Aknin et al., 2017, 2020; Hanniball et al., 2019). Similarly, in a Swedish experiment by Moche and Västfjäll (2021), donating to charity compared to not donating resulted in higher positive affect. However, in a German experiment by Falk and Graeber (2020), earning money in a lottery to save a life in India increased happiness in the short term, but in the long term it reduced happiness relative to earning money for self in a lottery. Aknin et al. (2015) found that prosocial giving in Vanuatu resulted in greater positive affect than not giving. Similarly, Aknin et al. (2010) reported that when participants in Uganda and Canada spent money on others (compared to spending on themselves), they experienced greater happiness.

We now look at correlational studies of the effect of helping on hedonic well-being with the caveat that there could be reverse causation. Helping during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and the U.S. was linked with higher positive affect and lower negative affect on the days when helping took place (Sin et al., 2020). Volunteering during the pandemic in the U.S. was associated with greater happiness than not volunteering (Mo et al., 2021). Prosocial behaviour in daily life in the United States predicted subsequent increases in positive affect and happiness in a community sample in a study by B. P. H. Hui and Kogan (2018a). Increased positive affect followed prosocial behaviour in daily life in a Dutch diary study (Snippe et al., 2017). Life satisfaction and happiness in older people were correlated with volunteering in a study with data taken from nationally representative surveys in Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan (Huang, 2019). Happiness was correlated with volunteering in Europe (Saz-Gil et al., 2019).

There are several correlational studies that link prosocial spending to greater well-being. In a Chinese study by Song et al. (2019) charitable behaviour was correlated with both life satisfaction and positive affect. A nationally representative Chinese survey project found a strong correlation between charitable giving and life satisfaction (Zheng et al., 2021). Charitable expenditure in Indonesia was associated with happiness and life satisfaction (Utama et al., 2021). Donating to charity across many countries, both poor and wealthy were associated with happiness in data from Gallup Surveys from 2015 to 2017 (Helliwell et al., 2018). Similarly, Aknin et al. (2010) analysing the Gallup World Poll from 2006 to 2008 found prosocial spending correlated with positive affect and life satisfaction in 122 of 136 nations. Results of the analyses showed that charitable donations had a similar relationship to positive affect and life satisfaction as household income being doubled. Thus, prosocial spending seems to be correlated with greater hedonic well-being all around the globe.

Activism was highly correlated with life satisfaction and happiness in online surveys by Klar and Kasser (2009) and in an analysis of a large European survey by Sarkute (2017). Activism was correlated with life satisfaction and happiness in Germany but not in Ghana, in the large-scale World Value Survey (Ba, 2020).

In summary, longitudinal studies showed that volunteering increased hedonic well-being in volunteers in the U.S., U.K., and Europe. However, in two U.S. experiments, one involving volunteering and the other involving activism, helping did not increase hedonic well-being. In experimental studies, giving money or goods increased hedonic well-being in North America, Sweden, Vanuatu, and Uganda. However, a German experiment showed a negative effect of prosocial spending on happiness in the long term. There are many correlational studies linking volunteering, prosocial spending, and activism to hedonic well-being. The studies provide partial support for the path from helping to psychological well-being, which is a component of Help is its Own Reward in the model.

Helping others increases eudaimonic well-being

Helping can also increase helpers’ sense of life’s meaning and purpose, their sense of mastery over circumstances, and their autonomy. Three large-scale U.S. longitudinal studies (Piliavin & Siegl, 2007; Son & Wilson, 2012; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001) found volunteering increased eudaimonia. Volunteering among people aged over 50 years in the U.S. was associated with higher purpose in life but not increased mastery, in a longitudinal study by E. S. Kim et al. (2020).

In an experiment by Martela and Ryan (2016), helping increased meaning in life, and Dolan et al. (2021) found that English volunteers during the pandemic experienced greater feelings that life was worthwhile than those who wanted to volunteer but couldn’t because of lack of demand for volunteer services. However, in an experimental study in the U.S. by Klar and Kasser (2009, study 3), a brief activist behaviour did not result in increased meaning in life.

Eudaimonia was positively related to prosocial behaviour in daily life in a study over 2 weeks in the United States (B. P. H. Hui & Kogan, 2018a). Mastery in older people was correlated with volunteering in a study with data taken from nationally representative surveys in Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan (Huang, 2019). A cross-sectional Scandinavian study (Santini et al., 2019) found a strong correlation between volunteering and eudaimonia. Activism was highly correlated with eudaimonia in U.S. online surveys by Klar and Kasser (2009) and in Sarkute’s (2017) European survey. Activists had more eudaimonic well-being than non-activists in an Israeli study by Zanbar (2018).

In summary, volunteering increased eudaimonic well-being in U.S. longitudinal studies and a quasi-experiment in the U.K. but not in an experiment involving activism in the U.S. Eudaimonia was correlated with volunteering in Asia, Europe, the U.S. and activism in the U.S., Europe, and Israel. Thus, there is further support, with some inconsistency, for the path in Figure 1, Help is its Own Reward.

Psychological well-being is boosted by increased self-efficacy from helping

Feeling good, more satisfied, experiencing more meaning, and wanting to help in the future, which are all outcomes of helping, will partly be channelled to the helper through enhanced efficacy. Weinstein and Ryan (2010) argue that the fulfilment of the need for competence (self-efficacy) leads to people feeling better in themselves. Müller et al. (2014) in a longitudinal study found that enhanced self-efficacy from volunteering increased a measure of psychological well-being including items of positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. In experiments by Weinstein and Ryan (2010), increased competence from prosocial behaviour increased positive affect and life satisfaction and reduced negative affect, and in an experiment by Martela and Ryan (2016) prosocial behaviour increased positive affect and meaningfulness through increased competence. In a study by B. P. H. Hui and Kogan (2018a) where participants recorded their prosocial behaviours and well-being levels daily for 2 weeks, competence moderated the effect of pro-sociality on well-being at a later time point. The relationship between activism and satisfaction with life was mediated by self-efficacy in a cross-sectional survey of undergraduates in the U.S. (Fenn et al., 2021). Brown et al. (2012) found that enhanced self-efficacy from being a volunteer increased life satisfaction in an Australian cross-sectional sample of volunteers. The mediational pathway from helping to self-efficacy to psychological well-being, an aspect of Help is its Own Reward in Figure 1, is supported by two experiments, and longitudinal study, a diary study, and correlational studies.

Individual benefits lead to ongoing benevolent support: staying engaged

Increased hedonic and eudaimonic well-being from helping may inspire helpers to stay engaged, which is the topic of this section. In a Dutch electronic daily diary study by Snippe et al. (2017), positive affect and prosocial behaviour mutually reinforced one another. In a Canadian experiment by Aknin et al. (2012), participants were happier after recalling a purchase for another person than for themselves and subsequently were more likely to spend money on someone else or donate to charity in the future. See B. P. Hui (2022) for a review of the literature on a positive feedback loop between prosocial behaviour and well-being.

Well-being predicted volunteer status at a later time for samples of volunteers in the U.S. (Son & Wilson, 2012) and Germany (Meier & Stutzer, 2008). The path from psychological well-being from helping to benevolent support, or Staying Engaged in Figure 1, has some supportive evidence in an experiment and a diary study. There is also evidence that psychological well-being in volunteers leads to engagement. We now turn to the benefits at the group level including those that contribute to the maintenance and improvement of society.

Helping others generates group-based outcomes: creating commitment

The idea that group-based effects can be derived from helping is central to the HOPEFUL model. We propose that helping can transform the helper’s self-concept to include positive identification with other helpers and also with the group being helped. Intergroup helping could increase supporters’ perception that others are united in efforts to help the disadvantaged group and thus their group-based efficacy. Helping others could enhance the helper’s general sense of belonging and connection to others or their social connectedness.

For the group-based effects, the central theories of our argument include social identity theory (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1979), self-categorisation theory (SCT, Turner et al., 1987; together, SIT and SCT are described as the social identity perspective by; Turner & Reynolds, 2001), and the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner et al., 1993), as well as a raft of adaptations and extensions of these theories, such as the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA: van Zomeren et al., 2008) and related work. These theories have attempted to explain group behaviour and its underlying mechanisms.

Understanding prejudice has been an abiding concern in the area of intergroup relations. Gaertner et al. (2015) argue that prejudice may result from the fundamental mental process of dividing people into “we” or “them” and tendency towards ingroup favouritism. For Halabi and Nadler (2017), differential treatment of ingroup and outgroup members can result in high-status groups asserting dominance over low-status groups by offering help that fosters dependency. Gaertner and colleagues propose that the solution to ingroup favouritism is the inclusion of outgroup members into a superordinate group where ingroup and former outgroup members share a common ingroup identity. Their common ingroup identity model has two types of shared identity: a superordinate identity, where the two original groups are subsumed under a higher order group, and a dual identity consisting of the shared superordinate identity but with original group identities left intact.

Identifying at the superordinate level should involve a lessening of perceived differences among the subordinate groups, which may reduce prejudice and foster positive relations between groups – although this may also mean that grievances are not addressed (Dixon et al., 2007; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Furthermore, a common ingroup identity tends to be defined by members of the more powerful group, thus consolidating inequality between groups (Gee & McGarty, 2013b). Moreover, in the case of conflict between the original groups, the superordinate identity could be weakened if not destroyed.

We argue that intergroup helping can bring mutual benefit to the helper and the recipient in the form of increased psychological and social well-being and increased efficacy and hope. Gee and McGarty (2013b, 2013b) idea that people can aspire to be part of cooperative communities working towards equality and founded on a shared ideology about how to improve conditions for disadvantaged groups is similar to organic solidarity (see Durkheim, 1933/1984). The aspiration for a cooperative community as a desired state of affairs in the world that does not yet in reality exist is not threatened by division or conflict. On the contrary, the aspiration to make the world better is actually affirmed by that unsatisfactory state. Collective movement towards change needs to be based on agreement about how things should be and not how they are.

van Zomeren et al. (2008) integrated group emotion resulting from perceived injustice, group efficacy (a belief that one’s group can effect change, see Bandura, 2000), and social identity as predictors of collective action into SIMCA in which social identity drives group efficacy and group emotion. Agostini and van Zomeren (2021) included injustice, efficacy, identity, and morality as predictors of collective action in their meta-analysis. In the HOPEFUL model, we include the group-based benefits of social identification and group efficacy as benefits of helping that motivate social change activism, and also include social connectedness. With the exception of hope, we do not include emotion as an outcome of helping that predicts collective action. Collective hope could be an intermediary between helping and further helping and warrants future investigation; however, we are not aware that it has been tested as a predictor of collective action.

In the Creating Commitment part of the second main route, intergroup helping leads to relevant group efficacy beliefs, social identification, and social connectedness. Group efficacy and shared identity have received much attention from scholars as motivators of collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Sustaining Commitment represents the relationship between the group-based cluster of benefits and collective action.

Intergroup helping increases social identification

According to Reynolds (2015), one’s social identification indicates the importance of a group membership and readiness to identify with the group. Social identification is fundamental to collective action support because of its direct effect on protest intentions and because of its relationship to group emotion and group efficacy (van Zomeren et al., 2004).

The effect of intergroup helping on social identification is one of the three components of the Creating Commitment path in the HOPEFUL model. There is limited research on the effects of collective action on social identification. Some of the research in this area has been inspired by the elaborated social identity model of crowds (ESIM: Drury & Reicher, 1999). The propositions of the model include that protest action will result in protesters coming to identify with a more inclusive protest group, and this identification is accompanied by empowerment. Drury et al. (2003) found qualitative evidence for ESIM in a number of studies. Similarly, an inclusive activist identity emerged among activists in Sweden (Vestergren et al., 2018). Supporters of a charity event in Poland experienced self-expansion from participation. The authors argue that self-expansion is related to the inclusion of others and groups in the self-concept (Besta & Zawadzka, 2019). Two German studies (a longitudinal and an experimental) showed a significant positive effect of activism on activist identity (Becker et al., 2011). Similarly, in a Turkish cross-sectional study by Odağ et al. (2016), online activism predicted activist identification.

There are other studies linking social identification to volunteering (a U.K. study by Bowe et al., 2020; a Hungarian study by; Kende et al., 2017; a German study by; Simon et al., 2000; an Australian study by; Thomas et al., 2017), but this research merits a closer examination. Although group identification may predict activism and volunteering as the authors argue, an equally plausible conclusion is that activism and volunteering predict group identification (and, of course, there could also be a recursive relationship). Further, longitudinal and experimental research would give better insight into these relationships.

The path from helping across group boundaries to social identification, which is an aspect of Creating Commitment in Figure 1, is backed by a qualitative study, correlational studies, an experiment, and a longitudinal study, which mainly examine the link between activism and activist identification. Evidence for this path also includes studies showing association between volunteering and social identification.

Intergroup helping increases group-based efficacy

In line with Bandura’s definition of self-efficacy as “a belief in one’s capability to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments”, self-efficacy can be seen to do with capability, action, and attainment. Hamann et al. (2023) conceptualise these three aspects of efficacy as agent, action, and aim. In the context of collective action, they call them the triple A framework for understanding self-efficacy research. Whereas self-efficacy is related to self-categorisation as an individual, group-based efficacy is related to group membership and self-categorisation as a group member. Many goals that are hoped for can only be achieved with the efforts of others; thus, it is important for people to believe that their group can influence change (Bandura, 2000). Group efficacy, which is “one’s collective belief that group-related problems can be solved by collective effort” (van Zomeren et al., 2004) is a prime driver of collective action (Agostini & van Zomeren, 2021; Thomas et al., 2012; van Zomeren et al., 2004, 2008) and can be seen as problem-focused coping (van Zomeren et al., 2004).

van Zomeren et al. (2004) found in Dutch experiments that perceiving others as willing to take group action increased group efficacy. In a study by Cocking and Drury (2004), anti-road protest in the U.K. (against governmental intentions and actions to build a new road) increased perceptions of group efficacy, shown in cross-sectional and qualitative analyses.

Group-based effects, including collective efficacy, are products of helping in the path Creating Commitment in Figure 1. There is surprisingly little evidence for the relationship between helping and group efficacy with only correlational and qualitative evidence supporting it.

Intergroup helping increases social connectedness

Social connectedness reflects an “internal sense of belonging and is defined as the subjective awareness of being in close relationship with the social world” (Lee & Robbins, 1998, p. 338). In Maslow’s (1943) needs hierarchy, the need for positive affectionate, connection to others is one of the five basic human needs and is the major driving force of human behaviour after physiological and safety needs have been met, and Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that belongingness is a basic human need driving the establishment and maintenance of relationships.

From studies of volunteering, activism, and prosocial behaviour, there is evidence suggesting that helping others increases social connectedness in the helper. In Son and Wilson’s (2012) longitudinal study, volunteering increased social well-being, which included an index of social integration. In Weinstein and Ryan’s (2010) daily diary and experimental studies, relatedness (arguably the same as connectedness) was increased by helping. In Dolan et al. (2021) study, English volunteers during the pandemic experienced greater social connectedness than those who wanted to volunteer but couldn’t because of lack of demand. Cross-sectional studies showed positive association between volunteering and social connectedness (Brown et al., 2012) and between conventional activism and social integration (Klar & Kasser, 2009), which is another term for social connectedness. Relatedly, increased social ties were correlated with both volunteering and activism in a large-scale U.S. study (Gilster, 2012) and volunteering in a large Australian sample (Pilkington et al., 2012). Although social ties are not the same as social connectedness, they are related constructs, and these studies point to a positive relationship between helping and connection with others.

In summary, the path from helping to social connectedness, also a component of Creating Commitment in Figure 1, is based on a longitudinal study, a diary study, a quasi-experiment, and correlational studies.

Group-based effects boost social engagement: sustaining commitment

The Sustaining Commitment path anticipates that social identification and collective efficacy lead to social change activism. The transformation in the helper’s identification as a member of a helping group and also identification with the recipient group could give rise to action towards social change for the recipient group. A sense of group efficacy arising from an act of help to a marginalised group also fosters commitment to change conditions for the group.

Social identification leads to social change activism

The path from social identification to helpful collective action, unlike the other pathways, has an empirical research foundation in intergroup relations. Collective action by one group motivated by a genuine desire to empower another group can be termed helpful collective action. The following quote by Nadler (2016) helps understand what helpful collective action is: “Under certain conditions – for example, common identity – intergroup helping relations represent the helper’s wish to empower the recipient, and therefore promote greater intergroup equality.” (p. 66) Who we help is to some extent determined by group membership and how we identify ourselves and others. We may help another group because it will further the interests of our group or because it is our group’s value or norm to help disadvantaged groups in society. We may also help other groups because of an inclusive identity (see Reicher et al., 2006; van Leeuwen, 2017).

People can be united under a common identity, so that (former) outgroup members become ingroup members and receive the same preferential treatment as ingroup members with the potential to bring positive change for the outgroup. As mentioned earlier, Gaertner et al. (2015) common ingroup identity model has two types of shared identity: a superordinate identity and a dual identity. Another type of common identity relevant to helpful collective action is a supporter group identity where members are united under common ideology and goals, which ties in with Gee and McGarty’s (2013b) concept of cooperative community. These communities are inclusive of marginalised group members and those who seek to help them, united in a desire to bring positive change for the group.

The enormous suffering experienced during WWII also provided notable examples of how the inclusion of marginal groups into a common national identity resulted in great help for those groups (see Epstein, 2008; Reicher et al., 2006). Common identity representations have increased intended actions towards social change across a range of conditions and situations, for instance, in Spain (Urbiola et al., 2017), Australia and Canada (Subašić et al., 2011), the U.S. (Glasford & Calcagno, 2012), and Israel (Nadler et al., 2009).

There is, however, evidence that a dual identity is more effective than a common identity in promoting equality, for instance, in the U.S. (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013, experiment 3; Glasford & Dovidio, 2011; Ufkes et al., 2016) and Canada (Urbiola et al., 2017). Whereas common identities favour the majority group and their values, dual identities promote a common superordinate identity as well as acknowledging differences between groups and may be preferred by disadvantaged groups.

Rather than focusing on the role of a superordinate identity in uniting groups, Thomas, McGarty, and colleagues, in Australian research, have used opinions as a basis for group membership and tested the relationship between identification as an allied supporter of a cause and collective action towards that cause. Supporter group studies are particularly interesting because they can potentially assess how much collective action occurs across the social category boundaries delineating advantaged groups from disadvantaged groups.

Thomas et al. (2012) found significant positive relations between social identification as a supporter of the United Nations movement designed to give people access to safe drinking water across the world and commitment to promote the programme. Being a supporter of efforts to end global poverty predicted anti-poverty action for people low in social dominance orientation (Hoskin et al., 2019). In an analysis of a survey of anti-poverty advocates by Thomas et al. (2016), identification as an anti-poverty supporter was correlated with humanitarian action, and Thomas et al. (2019) found identification as a supporter of Syrian refugees correlated with solidarity-based collective action to help refugees. In Gee and McGarty’s (2013a) research, identifying as a supporter of mental health advocacy promoted social action benefitting people experiencing mental disorders.

Supporting the Sustaining Commitment pathway in the HOPEFUL model in Figure 1, social identification in the form of superordinate common identities, dual identities, and opinion-based identities have all motivated intentions to act for social change in many contexts.

Group-based efficacy leads to social change activism

Group-based efficacy has been proposed as a major driver of collective action. Agostini and van Zomeren’s (2021) meta-analysis summarised evidence that the belief that one’s group can change a situation of disadvantage predicts support for collective action (the correlation between efficacy and collective action was r = .38). In van Zomeren et al. (2008) meta-analysis, the mean effect size for efficacy and collective action was r = .34. A number of studies have confirmed this empirical relationship between collective efficacy and collective action (in a U.K. study by Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995; in a German study by; Mummendey et al., 1999; in German and U.K. studies by; Tausch et al., 2011; van Zomeren et al., 2004)

There are a number of definitions of efficacy in a group context. Van Zomeren et al. (2013) defined group efficacy as “beliefs that the group can achieve group goals through joint effort” (p. 621). An alternative view of group efficacy is that it has primarily measured political efficacy, which is “the efficacy of collective action at redressing a group’s disadvantaged position by pushing outgroups responsible for collective grievances to change their policies” (Saab et al., 2015, p. 541).

However, much of the research on antecedents of collective action has looked at non-violent protest (Saab et al., 2016). Tausch et al. (2011) studied group efficacy as an antecedent of violent collective action and found it to be a negative predictor (Study 1). Van Zomeren et al. (2013) also found that group efficacy negatively predicted violent collective action (Study 2). van Zomeren and colleagues measured participatory efficacy defined as “a type of efficacy that includes the belief in achieving group goals through collective action as well as the belief that one’s own contribution to it makes a difference to these collective efforts” (p 620) and found it to predict both peaceful and violent collective action. They see participatory efficacy as connecting self-efficacy and group-efficacy. Saab et al. (2015) make a further distinction between political efficacy and identity consolidation efficacy, which is “the efficacy of collective action at affirming, confirming, and strengthening the identity of the protesting group’ (p. 541). They proposed that identity consolidation efficacy contributes to political efficacy and also directly predicts collective action and found evidence for this among allied supporters. Hamann et al. (2023) found that in social justice research, mostly done in the West, the agent – aim link rather than agent-action-aim link or agent-action link (based on the Triple A framework of self-efficacy beliefs) has predominated. This may be less true in non-democratic situations where the immediate aim of protest may be unattainable.

Sustaining Commitment in Figure 1 includes the path from collective efficacy to social change activism. There is good evidence that collective efficacy drives peaceful activism but also evidence that it has a negative effect on violent protest. However, efficacy, if measured by group efficacy as well as individual efficacy to make a group difference, may motivate both non-violent and violent activism.

Individual hope leads to social change activism: reimagining the future

The Reimagining the Future path in HOPEFUL is from individual hope in a group context (or when an individual hopes for the future of their group or an allied group) to collective action. Hope, although an individual emotion, has importance in intergroup relations. Hope entails imagining a better future and planning to achieve that future. In an intergroup context of, for instance, conflict between groups, hope can aid working towards a group goal by enabling people to imagine that the goal in possible and to think creatively about how to attain it (see Cohen-Chen et al., 2015). For helpers to have greater positive expectation of good outcomes for the recipient group could lead to commitment to social change. Hope can be a powerful force motivating social change if accompanied by empowerment and concrete action (Courville & Piper, 2004). Halperin and Gross (2011) reported that hope motivated Israelis’ support for aid to Palestinian civilians during the Gaza war in 2008 and mediated between the regulation of negative emotion through reappraisal and support for humanitarian aid. Wlodarczyk et al. (2017) found hope mobilised people to participate in the 15-M protest movement in Spain and amplified the effects of group identity, group efficacy, and anger on collective action. In Greenaway et al. (2016) study, experimentally induced hope among non-Native Americans increased support for social change to benefit Native Americans by boosting the perceived efficacy of the advantaged groups to bring about social change. Greenaway and colleagues also found a strong link between hope and support for social change for disadvantaged groups by advantaged groups in the U.S. and the Netherlands.

Cohen-Chen and van Zomeren (2018) went further than these studies and experimentally tested the impact on collective action of group efficacy when hope was low and experimentally tested the impact of hope and group efficacy on collective action. They performed three experiments: The first experiment manipulated group efficacy beliefs when social change was improbable, and the second and third experiments manipulated both hope and perceptions of group efficacy in situations that where neither low nor high in the possibility of change. In study one, perceptions of group efficacy did not predict collective action when hope for conflict resolution was low. In studies two and three, perceptions of group efficacy predicted support for collective action but only when hope was high. The authors argue that when social change is hard to imagine, perceptions of group efficacy may be irrelevant as change may not be possible.

Whereas Cohen-Chen and van Zomeren’s (2018) studies show that baseline levels of hope are important for collective action, Hasan-Aslih et al. (2019) showed that the target of hope can determine collective action intentions. In correlational studies, hoping for better intergroup relations (harmony-focused hope) was related to lower commitment to improve social conditions when participants were low in levels of identification with their group, and harmony-focused hope reduced collective action intentions compared to collective action focused on intergroup equality.

In three experimental studies addressing climate change by van Zomeren et al. (2019), the possibility of achieving the climate change target predicted hope; however, hope did not predict collective action. The authors concluded that hope may serve as a way of coping emotionally and not necessarily involve agency or the need to act in the context of climate change. However, Bury et al. (2020) found that the possibility, but not probability, that a nation’s actions would help mitigate climate change predicted hope that the actions would aid in the reduction of climate change, which motivated support for climate change action, but only when participants were personally invested in the cause. Bury et al. concluded that when a goal is important to a person and their identity, they grasp at the chance of success and give it hope. A meta-analysis by Geiger et al. (2023) found positive but inconclusive evidence that hope was correlated with more engagement in climate change action. The effect sizes, however, differed according to how hope was measured. A general sense of hopefulness and general hope about climate change were only weakly correlated with climate engagement, whereas hope resulting from thinking about action for climate change was strongly correlated with climate engagement.

There is correlational and experimental evidence for a relationship between hope and social change activism, which supports the path Reimagining the Future in Figure 1. However, studies showed that group efficacy motivated collective action when hope was high but not when it was low or when social change was not probable. In the context of climate change, hope did not predict collective action in some studies but in one study, it predicted collective action for personally invested people. There is also evidence that the focus of hope is important for collective action and that how hope is measured makes a difference. Thus, the relationship between hope and social change activism is not straightforward and warrants further research.

Discussion

It is useful to pose the question as to what the HOPEFUL model offers to the social psychological understanding of helping. In general, it builds on, and extends, current directions in the helping literature particularly in understanding the distinction between charitable giving and social change activism. As mentioned previously, Thomas and McGarty (2018 building on earlier traditions) distinguished between benevolent support and activist support, however, they have not explained how those two forms of helping emerge or how they relate to each other over time. The HOPEFUL model proposes that benevolent and activist support are dynamically related. Acts of helping, whether benevolent support in the form of volunteering or charitable giving, or activist support as socio-political action, initiate psychological processes in the helper that drive both benevolent support and activist support in the future. HOPEFUL proposes that benevolent support is driven by the act of help giving the helper a sense of personal fulfilment, and activist support is driven by the act of help giving the helper a sense of engagement.

What we know regarding the first route, from help to benevolent support, is that the path from helping others to increased psychological well-being, self-efficacy, and hope or what we have called Help is its Own Reward is well established (see Dolan et al., 2021; Hansen et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2021 for psychological well-being, Martela & Ryan, 2016 for self-efficacy, and Klar & Kasser, 2009 for hope). The second path, Staying Engaged, from increased psychological well-being to benevolent support is less well established but is supported by a few empirical studies (see Aknin et al., 2012; Snippe et al., 2017). What we know regarding the second route from help to activist support, is that the first path, Creating Commitment, or the path from help to increased social identification, collective efficacy, and social connectedness is supported by several empirical studies (see Becker et al., 2011 for social identification; Cocking & Drury, 2004 for collective efficacy; and Dolan et al., 2021 for social connectedness). Sustaining Commitment, or the path from social identification and collective efficacy to activist support, is supported by a wealth of empirical research (see Thomas et al., 2012 for social identification and Agostini & van Zomeren, 2021 for collective efficacy). Reimagining the Future, the path from hope to activist support, has some conflicting evidence (see Bury et al., 2020; van Zomeren et al., 2019). The HOPEFUL model fuses these two major pathways and one minor pathway into a single model.

Thus, helping of whatever form generates benevolent support and activist support side by side in the future, which in turn trigger psychological processes that drive further helping. We propose a serial relationship between benevolent support and activist support where they are intimately connected yet distinct forms of helping that are driven by different psychological mechanisms.

Implications of the model for social-psychological theorizing

There are two key implications of the model for social-psychological theorising. The HOPEFUL model implies that the disadvantaged are empowered by intergroup helping through being positioned as active agents, which offsets the tendency for intergroup helping to create dependency, disempowerment, and subordination as suggested by Halabi and Nadler (2017). The model also implies that contact between unequal groups and mobilisation for social change are not necessarily incompatible. The model includes positive contact between groups, which reduces prejudice; however, the groups are joined together by a common cause, thus social identification for disadvantaged group members and their desire for collective action are increased, which counters the tendency for intergroup contact to immobilise disadvantaged groups as suggested by Wright and Lubensky (2009).

A secondary implication of the model for theorising involves moral self-licencing theory. Although moral self-licencing theory would suggest that helping others may set helpers free to act selfishly or immorally (Merritt et al., 2010), the HOPEFUL model offers an explanation of why this tendency may be offset for helpers. When a goal is seen as an indicator of commitment rather than progress, people show consistency in behaviour (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005, Study 3). In the HOPEFUL model, helping creates a commitment to the cause of helping by enhancing identification as a supporter and sense of efficacy in achieving group goals. This commitment leads to further helping consistent with the initial act of helping. Thus, any tendency to self-licencing bad behaviour would be offset.

Implications of the model for the practice of helping

Positioning marginalised groups as providers of help and not just benefactors can help restore them socially and psychologically as well as generate future help that could restore their communities. It is important that marginalised groups are not positioned as passive recipients of help and important not to assume that they are weak, helpless, and dependent. Positioning them in active, decisive, helping roles can empower and build vital social and psychological resources that are often depleted in marginalised groups. It can establish shared social identities geared towards long-term commitment to positive social change, as well as stimulate ongoing acts of support.

The need for programmes of empowerment for marginalised groups has been recognised by the Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) who conducted a programme to help children in Sierra Leone, which from 1991 to 2001 experienced civil war.

A rebel group, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), tried to overthrow the government and villages were thrown into rivalry over basic resources such as food, water, and shelter (Wessells, 2009). Many children were recruited into the RUF and their return to the villages added to a climate of fear and distrust. Children also fought in village militias opposing the RUF, creating tension between opposing groups of former child soldiers. CCF created community exchange between villages in the Northern Province aimed at unifying the villages through cooperation. These community groups selected projects such as rebuilding a school or a bridge that their young people could jointly participate in and be paid for. The teams of children included youth who had been recruited, sometimes from different sides, and youth who had not been soldiers. Before the team work began, village elders, and CCF workers ran a 2-day workshop for the children to build unity, challenge old stereotypes, and reduce prejudice. On completion of the projects, the effectiveness of the programme was assessed by interviews and discussion groups. There were positive outcomes for relations between villages, among the children, and between the children and their villages. Former enemies saw each other as also suffering from the effects of war and were more agreeable to living together and in cooperation. (Peak, 2022, p. 562-563)

Another programme of empowerment after armed conflict in Africa was Messages of Hope, which provided a platform for survivors of the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda to share personal stories of recovery, view messages by other survivors, and to make available their stories to the world.

One hundred messages have been recorded by survivors expressing such themes as the value of education in creating a better life after genocide, being strong as an act of reverence for those family members who were killed, having a vision for Rwanda, and forming networks of mutual support with other survivors. (Lala et al., 2014). Focusing on hope for the future and flourishing in the face of tragedy, Messages of Hope was intended to be a balance to other programmes of recovery that centre on the past, such as memorialisation and testimony of what happened during the genocide. (Peak, 2022, p. 567)

The project was aimed at increasing the psychological and social well-being of survivors, enhancing community solidarity and bonding, and letting the world see the strength and resilience of the Rwandan people (Lala et al., 2014; McGarty et al., 2012). The best way to help people may be to position them as helpers themselves.

Positioning marginalised groups as active helpers may also avoid problems of allyship whereby marginalised groups have active helping, decision-making roles instead of being subordinate to advantaged allies (see Droogendyk et al., 2016).

Limitations and future directions

A major limitation of the HOPEFUL model is that most of the research forming a basis for the model was done in the West. A key question awaiting further research is whether the relationships in the model hold in contexts where freedom of action is limited. Another major limitation is that most of the pathways relied on research on interpersonal rather than intergroup helping. Although the book Intergroup Helping (van Leeuwen & Zagefka) was published in 2017, most scholars in the field have studied the dangers and threats of intergroup helping, with little attention to its potential benefits. Thus, most of the pathways in the HOPEFUL model were not based on intergroup research, with the path from social identification to social change activism being the only path with substantial backing from studies on intergroup helping. A key question that awaits further research is whether intergroup helping brings the same benefits to helpers in terms of increased psychological well-being and increased social identification as does individual helping and if these outcomes lead to further helping in an intergroup context. Further limitations of the model are possibly when helping is pressured or controlled, when there is poor bonding to the recipient, low resources of the helper, and low perceived impact of helping. Future research could investigate these potential preconditions for the applicability of the model.

The relationship between hope and commitment to social change awaits further research. Although there is correlational evidence for a positive effect of hope on support for social change, experiments by Cohen-Chen and van Zomeren (2018) showed non-significant support for social change when hope was low or change improbable. Hasan-Aslih et al. (2019) found that hope for improved intergroup relations, rather than for equality, undermined support for collective action; however, their studies were correlational. van Zomeren et al. (2019) found in experiments that perceived possibility of climate change increased hope but hope did not increase intentions towards collective action for change. However, Bury et al. (2020) found experimentally that possibility, but not probability, of climate change predicted hope, which predicted collective action for people who were personally invested in the cause. Personal investment embraced aspects of social identity.

Thus, research is needed to clarify the role of personal investment and social identification in the relationship between hope and collective action when the probability of change is low, especially in regard to climate change. A question awaiting further research is whether hope for better relations between groups reduces collective action in experimental manipulations and whether hope for better intergroup relations founded on a desire for equality between groups also undermines collective action or whether it motivates it.

A further limitation is that there is scant research on some of the individual pathways, for example, between psychological well-being and benevolent support and between helping and collective efficacy. Two studies show a positive feedback loop between positive affect and prosocial behaviour (Aknin et al., 2012; Snippe et al., 2017); however, Aknin et al. (2012) experiment involved only recollection of charitable giving. Thus, research is needed to establish the reciprocal relationship between different types of prosocial behaviour and a wider range of psychological well-being indicators. Although Cocking and Drury (2004) found activism related to group efficacy in correlational and qualitative analyses, there are no experiments supporting the relationship. Thus, there needs to be further evidence for this relationship.

Conclusion

In the HOPEFUL model, helping in the form of activism or volunteering promotes further helping in the activities of both benevolent support (volunteering and charitable giving) and social change activism. There is a dynamic interconnection between these two types of giving although they are distinct ways to redress inequality. Thus, if future research supports the model, the model’s key message is likely to be true: that it is good to help not just because helping benefits the helper but because helping alleviates suffering on an individual level and also increases action towards social equality.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research was supported by a scholarship to Rose Peak from Western Sydney University. Postgraduate Research Scholarship 2019. CRICOS Provider No. 00917K.