# The role of collective positive prospection in motivating social change: A scoping review of methods and findings

M Chevrier, L Bosonne, F Zenasni, P Delhomme

► To cite this version:

M Chevrier, L Bosonne, F Zenasni, P Delhomme. The role of collective positive prospection in motivating social change: A scoping review of methods and findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2025, 103, pp.102576. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102576. hal-05110082

HAL Id: hal-05110082

https://u-paris.hal.science/hal-05110082v1

Submitted on 12 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# The role of collective positive prospection in motivating social change: A scoping review of methods and findings

Chevrier M<sup>a,∗</sup>, Bosone L<sup>a</sup>, Zenasni F<sup>b</sup>, Delhomme P<sup>a</sup>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

Handling editor: Liuna Geng

### Keywords:

- Collective positive prospection

- Utopian thinking

- Cognitive alternatives

- Social change

- Sustainability

## ABSTRACT

Envisioning, imagining, and prospecting positive collective futures are processes that are increasingly recognized as powerful motivators for social change, especially in response to pressing global challenges to planetary health. However, the field is fragmented by different terminologies, methodologies and theoretical frameworks, making it difficult to develop a comprehensive understanding of how these processes work. This article presents the first systematic review of empirical studies on the imagination of positive collective futures — referred to as *collective positive prospection* — and its relationship with motivation to engage in social change behaviors. We conducted a scoping review in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018), focusing on articles published between January 1992 and September 2024, and identified 20 articles, for a total of 33 studies. Our analysis revealed an overrepresentation of ecological futures compared to broader sustainability futures, utopian futures, or those focused on specific themes such as economic equality. Building on this corpus, we first examined how the relationship between collective positive prospection and social change has been studied, along with the methodologies used and their limitations. We then reviewed the evidence on how and when collective positive prospection effectively motivates social change. Four main mechanisms through which collective positive prospection may drive social change action were identified: individuals’ perceptions of the achievability and desirability of the future, their criticism of the status quo, and the level of abstraction of the envisioned future. Additionally, several moderators of the motivational effects of prospection were identified, such as individuals’ prior beliefs about the issue at hand. Finally, we discuss the review’s findings, highlighting several avenues for methodological improvements and further theoretical exploration. While gaps remain, this review suggests that collective positive prospection is a promising approach for mobilizing individuals to address contemporary global challenges and provides a foundation for future research and practical applications.

## 1. Introduction

The role of utopian visions in driving social change has long been acknowledged by both psychologists (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and sociologists (e.g., Levitas, 1990). However, it is only in recent years that the mental simulation of positive collective futures has started to receive substantial empirical attention. This surge in interest reflects the growing recognition that imagining positive collective futures can motivate individuals and groups to engage in social change efforts, urgently needed to deal with the contemporary global challenges to planetary health.

This line of inquiry was reopened, notably by the work of Fernando et al. (2018), which showed that ordinary people — not just artists,

writers, or politicians — actively think about how society could be improved. Their research challenged the notion that such prospection only led to escapism or complacency (e.g., Levitas, 1990), demonstrating instead that it can help people critically assess the limitations of the current society and inspire action. Since then, a growing body of experimental research has confirmed that imagining better futures can effectively motivate individuals to engage in social change. For example, envisioning models of sustainable societies has been shown to increase individuals’ motivation to take action for social change (Badaan et al., 2022; Bosone et al., 2024; Daysh et al., 2024; Fernando et al., 2020; Wenzel et al., 2024).

A key idea underlying this body of work is that these visions can motivate individuals to narrow the discrepancy between desired future

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Univ Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris Cité, LaPEA, F-78000, Versailles, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: marie.chevrier@univ-eiffel.fr (C. M).</footnote>
outcomes for society and its current condition, shifting the focus from what *is* to what *ought* to be (Badaan et al., 2020). Several hypotheses have been proposed to better understand how this prospection drives motivation for change and to identify the types of futures or conditions that are most effective in driving such motivation. However, gaining a comprehensive understanding of this expanding research field remains challenging. One of the main obstacles is the diversity of terms used to describe similar phenomena (e.g., utopian thinking, cognitive alternatives, positive visions), as well as the multiple methodologies and theoretical frameworks employed. This has led to a certain fragmentation of knowledge, making it difficult to aggregate findings and establish a coherent perspective.

This article seeks to address this fragmentation by providing the first systematic review of empirical work on this topic, which we refer to as *collective positive prospection*, i.e., future-oriented thinking in which individuals envision positive or sustainable changes within a collective context. In this review, we address two main questions.

1. How has collective positive prospection been studied?

2. How and when does collective positive prospection motivate social change behavior?

Our goal is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of this expanding area, integrating previously fragmented lines of inquiry while also contextualizing the findings within insights from related fields. By doing so, we also aim to identify opportunities for methodological improvement and for the exploration of new avenues that may deepen our understanding of the mechanisms through which collective positive prospection can inspire action for social change. Given the recent rise in interest and the absence of prior reviews on this topic, we have chosen to conduct a scoping review, offering a broad yet structured overview of the literature and shedding light on the field's development (Munn et al., 2018).

## 2. Methodology

We conducted the scoping review by following the guidelines of the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018).

### 2.1. Search strategy

We identified documents through PsycINFO and Scopus databases. The search strategy was developed using keywords to target articles that explore the interplay between individuals' envisioning of better or sustainable collective futures and behaviors or behavioral intentions toward social change. More particularly, the keywords "*(prospection OR imagin* OR collective future* OR utopi* OR vision* OR cognitive alter native*) AND (sustainab* OR pro-environmental OR climate change OR social change) AND (psychol* OR intention* OR behav*)" served as the search statement in accordance with the search syntax of each database. The search targeted instances where these terms appeared within article titles, abstracts, and keywords provided by the authors. The inquiry focused on examining scholarly works from January 1992 up to February 2023. Additional articles were sourced from the text and reference lists of the primary articles, as well as through alerts for new publications (up to September 2024).

### 2.2. Eligibility criteria and screening process

A total of 1364 records were retrieved from database searches using keywords. The screening process (organized on the Rayyan platform; Ouzzani et al., 2016) followed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria (see the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram in Fig. 1). First, duplicates and documents either in languages other than English or that had not undergone peer review were identified and eliminated, leaving 1238

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Screening and inclusion decision flowchart.</figcaption></figure>

records. Next, the title and abstract screening of these records were conducted by two co-authors and two interns. All records were independently reviewed by at least two reviewers, and where there was initial disagreement, conflicts were resolved by consensus after consulting a third reviewer. At this stage, records were excluded if they (1) did not include human participants; (2) focused on clinical profiles or mental troubles; (3) focused on predictive scenarios while disregarding individuals' engagement, decisions, or perceptions regarding the scenarios; (4) did not focus on prospection of collective futures (i.e., future thoughts about collective or sociopolitical contexts in which individuals are embedded; Shrikanth et al., 2018; Szpunar & Szpunar, 2016), thus excluding records focusing exclusively on personal objectives, as well as organizational and corporate futures; (5) did not focus on the prospection of either a future perceived by participants as subjectively better in general, or broadly recognized as positive because aligned with at least one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015). This step narrowed the selection down to 25 articles for full-text review. Finally, the full-text screening was conducted by two of the co-authors, who resolved any conflicts between them through consensus. During the full-text screening, records were included if (1) they described at least one original quantitative empirical study, and (2) investigated the relationship between our independent variable of interest (prospection of collective positive futures) and our dependent variable of interest (social change behavior or intention). This process resulted in the selection of 8 articles, along with 12 additional records, all of which met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. In total, the review includes 20 articles published between 2012 and 2024, comprising 33 empirical studies.

### 2.3. Data extraction

All eligible articles were thoroughly reviewed in full, and relevant information from each study was extracted. This included data such as authorship, publication year, study design, sample size and demographic characteristics, as well as key characteristics related to collective positive prospection, including themes, measures, and induction methods. Each study included in the review was assigned a reference number (1–33) to facilitate citation throughout the review. A summary of the study characteristics is given in the Appendix. The main results regarding the effects or correlations of prospection on social change intentions, as well as any mediating or moderating variables, were identified for discussion. Data extraction was conducted independently by two co-authors until consensus was reached.

## 3. Results

From a general descriptive standpoint, the 33 studies included 20 correlational, 12 experimental, and 1 cohort study. Among these, 60 %
focused on ecological collective futures (i.e., themes related to general environmental sustainability), 24 % on sustainable futures (i.e., addressing multiple dimensions of sustainability), 15 % on idealized futures (i.e., subjectively better futures), and a few individual studies addressed themes such as economic equality, meat-free diets, and abortion laws (with some studies covering multiple themes).

In the following sections, we will address the two research questions guiding this review. First, we will examine how the relationship between collective positive prospection and social change has been studied, focusing on the methodologies used and identifying areas for potential improvement. Second, we will review the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between collective positive prospection and social change motivation, focusing first on identified mediators and then on moderators.

### 3.1. How has collective positive prospection been studied?

Research on the relationship between collective positive prospection and motivation for social change has been approached through three main pathways, sometimes concurrently: (1) examining how *individual differences* in prospection relate to motivation, (2) exploring how the imagination process motivates action by assessing the effects of *induced prospection*, and (3) investigating the effects of specific *characteristics of prospection content*. The following sections synthesize the methodologies associated with each of these approaches and discuss considerations for future research.

#### 3.1.1. Individual differences in collective positive prospection

Several studies included in the review focused on examining how individual differences in collective positive prospection - such as the frequency of prospective thoughts, the value attributed to it, and the ability to engage in it - correlate with motivation to act for social change. Three distinct scales have been developed to explore these relationships. Table 1 presents a summary of the scales, associated factors, and sample items.

Two of these scales specifically measure individual inclination to engage in collective positive prospection: the *Utopian Thinking* scale (Fernando et al., 2018) and the *Transformative Utopian Impulse for Planetary Health* (TUIPH) scale (Basso & Krpan, 2022). While these scales share some similarities, key distinctions exist. The Utopian Thinking scale focuses on individuals' spontaneous tendency to imagine ideal societies. It comprises two factors: Utopianism, which measures the propensity to think about an ideal future and value these thoughts, and Anti-Utopianism, which evaluates negative attitudes toward such ideas, perceiving them as useless or harmful. In contrast, the TUIPH scale assesses utopian thoughts with a specific focus on addressing global issues, such as social and environmental challenges. It is structured around four distinct factors: transformative thinking and action, belief in utopian solutions, emotional responsiveness to such solutions, and the choice of products or services that support societal and environmental solutions.

The third scale, the *Environmental Cognitive Alternatives* scale (ECA; Wright et al., 2020), measures individuals' ability to envision a sustainable relationship between humans and nature (Wright et al., 2020). This concept is rooted in Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), which posits that being able to conceive cognitive alternatives to the current state of affairs is a precondition for collective action. Wright et al. (2020) expanded this idea to environmental issues, hypothesizing that the ability to envision sustainable human-nature relationships could generate support for pro-environmental actions.

Five studies (8, 10, 14, 17, 24; see Appendix) explored the relationship between the Utopian Thinking scale and motivation for social change behaviors. Seven studies (7–12, 14) focused on the TUIPH scale, while another nine (13–14, 24, 26–28, 31–33) examined the ECA scale. Collectively, these scales provide valuable tools for investigating the link between individual differences in collective positive prospection and

<table><caption>**Table 1**

Overview of measures of individual differences in collective positive prospection.</caption><thead><tr><th>Names of scale and factors</th><th>Description</th><th>Example items</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Utopian Thinking</strong> (Fernando et al., 2018)</td><td>Ordinary people's imaginations of their ideal societies/specific societies</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Utopianism (4 items)</td><td>Propensity and positive attitudes toward utopian thinking</td><td>"I often think about what an ideal society might look like"</td></tr><tr><td>Anti-Utopianism (4 items)</td><td>Negative attitudes toward utopian thinking</td><td>"Dreaming about an ideal society could be dangerous"</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Transformative Utopian Impulse for Planetary Health</strong> (Basso & Krpan, 2022)</td><td>Propensity to have thoughts and to engage in actions to transform the current society into a better one in the future by addressing existing global issues</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Propensity for transformational utopian thinking and action (3 items)</td><td>Propensity to engage in thoughts and actions aimed at transforming society</td><td>"One of the most important driving forces in my life is to develop ideas that could contribute to a better world in which nothing is missing for all human beings."</td></tr><tr><td>Beliefs in transformative utopian solutions (3 items)</td><td>Beliefs that solutions that can transform society already exist even if they are not widely known or adopted</td><td>"I feel that there are many alternative social and economic activities that could resolve current social issues if they were widely adopted"</td></tr><tr><td>Affective and motivational responsiveness to transformative utopian solutions (3 items)</td><td>Affective and motivational reactions when encountering solutions that have the potential to transform society</td><td>"I feel excited when I come across propositions that could overcome our past and present economic, social, and environmental failures"</td></tr><tr><td>Choice of transformative utopian products and services (3 items)</td><td>Choice of products and services that could transform society</td><td>"Whenever I have the choice, I choose products and services that can help fix the social and environmental problems resulting from our malfunctioning economic system"</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Environmental Cognitive Alternatives</strong> (10 items) (Wright et al., 2020)</td><td>Ability to imagine what an ecological society, based on a harmonious human-nature relationship, might look like</td><td>"I can easily imagine a world in which we supply all of our energy needs without harming the natural world"</td></tr></tbody></table>

social change motivation. They also help shed light on why some people are more likely to engage in such prospection and how these tendencies might evolve in response to external factors (e.g., political shifts or specific interventions). However, this latter point remains underexplored. While some experimental research has successfully promoted access to environmental cognitive alternatives (Bosone et al., 2024), these findings have not always been replicated (Troy et al., 2024), and equivalent studies for Utopian Thinking and TUIPH are currently lacking. Overall, these scales open up numerous avenues for further research, many of which have yet to be explored (e.g., see Basso & Krpan, 2022).

Several opportunities for measurement improvement must also be considered. To date, only the TUIPH and ECA scales have followed standard psychometric validation, leaving the reliability of other measures uncertain. Furthermore, while existing scales already address different domains of collective futures - whether ideal, ecological, or sustainable - there remains a need for greater thematic diversity. Developing scales that capture prospection targeting specific other
futures, such as economic or gender equality, would enrich research in these areas. Another avenue for improvement lies in creating a comprehensive scale that integrates different factors from the Utopian Thinking, TUIPH, and ECA scales. Indeed, Chevrier et al. (2024) found that, although these scales are highly positively correlated (see also Basso & Krpan, 2022; Law et al., 2023), each contributes unique information, suggesting that they complement one another in capturing different dimensions of individual differences in collective positive prospection. This points to the potential for a unified and more comprehensive measure.

### 3.1.2. Induction of collective positive prospection

Another part of the literature reviewed in this article focused specifically on the effects of induced collective positive prospection, that is, the causal effects of mentally simulating collective positive futures. In total, eleven studies (1, 13, 15–16, 18–21, 28–30; see Appendix) examined these effects.

Although the tasks used in these studies were similar in requiring participants to imagine collective futures that positively deviate from the status quo, they were referred to differently (e.g., utopian thinking, imagination, prospection, future-oriented thinking, positive visions) and varied in both their simulation methods and their thematic focus (see Table 2). The envisioned futures ranged from ideal societies (Fernando et al., 2018), to ecological futures (e.g., Bosone et al., 2024), broader sustainable futures (Badaan et al., 2022), and futures centered on economic equality (Wenzel et al., 2024). The degree to which participants were involved in the creation and elaboration of these futures also varied across studies. In some tasks, participants were simply asked to read a scenario (e.g., Badaan et al., 2022), meaning that they did not actively engage in generating the mental simulation and were not required to elaborate further. In contrast, in other tasks, participants were only guided by a prompt to imagine a specific type of future without additional support (e.g., Fernando et al., 2018). In these cases, the participants actively created the envisioned future themselves, often elaborating on it through written descriptions. Thus, participants either passively received information or actively generated their vision (active creation) and were either guided to develop their visions further or not (elaboration).

Based on these studies, it is difficult to determine which type of collective positive prospection task is most effective in motivating behavioral change, as no direct empirical comparison has been conducted. However, it is possible to discern specific advantages for each

type of task, which would merit further exploration in future research. For example, providing participants with detailed information about the envisioned future may be helpful in cases where individuals struggle to imagine certain scenarios on their own. Conversely, it is also conceivable that more active participation in both the creation and elaboration of these futures may be more motivating, as it could foster a deeper sense of engagement and ownership over the envisioned outcomes.

Another important point regarding these experimental studies is that they have often compared the effects of prospection to control conditions in which participants did not engage in any task. As previously noted by Fritsche (2024), this approach makes it difficult to interpret the specific effects attributable to collective positive prospection and can potentially lead to an overestimation of its effects. Potential confounding variables include the cognitive salience of certain issues (e.g., environmental crises), the induction of general positive affect, or even demand effects. Additionally, considering that imagining a better version of society - regardless of its specific content - has been shown to increase intentions to engage in social change behaviors (Fernando et al., 2018), it is important to explore the added value of aligning the prospected content (e.g., a green society) with the specific behaviors being measured (e.g., pro-environmental actions). That said, it is important to note that some researchers have already taken steps to address these concerns. For example, Daysh et al. (2024) compared their experimental condition (ecological prospection) to an 'active' control condition in which participants were asked to "think about the current state of the Earth in relation to climate change" (Study 2). This design allowed them to explore the effects of prospection by controlling for the salience of ecological issues. Future studies should continue along this line of inquiry, systematically isolating non-specific factors to better understand the unique contribution of collective positive prospection.

### 3.1.3. Characteristics of prospection content

Finally, research has also explored how the specific characteristics of envisioned collective futures can influence motivation to act for social change (a total of ten studies: 2–6, 13, 20–21, 23, 25; see Appendix). Bain et al. (2013) referred to these characteristics as "the active ingredients in people's visions of society's future", encapsulated in what they termed the Collective Future Framework (CFF). They examined, in particular, how individuals' beliefs about the consequences of achieving a specific future society could influence their current motivation to support that future. In CFF studies (e.g., Bain et al., 2013, 2016), participants are typically asked to imagine specific societal scenarios for the

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Overview of collective positive prospection tasks.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">References</th><th colspan="4">Types of Induction(s)</th><th>Control condition(s)</th></tr><tr><th>Thematic</th><th>Active creation</th><th>Elaboration</th><th>Task(s)</th><th>Task(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Badaan et al. (2022)</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Text reading</td><td>Text reading: on a real city and its social life</td></tr><tr><td>Bosone et al. (2024)</td><td>Ecology</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Text reading</td><td>No task</td></tr><tr><td>Daysh et al. (2024)</td><td>Ecology</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Imagining, choosing images, and writing</td><td>No task (Study 1–2)<br>Imagination task: present-day reality in relation to climate change (Study 2)</td></tr><tr><td>Fernando et al. (2018)</td><td>Ideal</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Imagining and writing</td><td>No task</td></tr><tr><td>Fernando et al. (2020)</td><td>Ecology</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Text reading and writing</td><td>Writing task: on an ordinary day in life</td></tr><tr><td>Hamann et al. (2021)</td><td>Ecology</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Coaching workshops</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Troy et al. (2024)</td><td>Ecology</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Text reading and image presentation</td><td>Text reading: on steps for proper handwashing</td></tr><tr><td>Wenzel et al. (2024)</td><td>Ecology (Study 1)<br>Economic Equality (Study 2)</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Imagining and writing</td><td>No task</td></tr></tbody></table>
future (such as mitigated climate change), and rate how various aspects of society and its people would change. Specifically, changes in society are evaluated based on anticipated shifts in societal dysfunctions (e.g., murder, poverty) and developments (e.g., technological innovation, education standards). Changes in people are assessed based on possible shifts in traits (e.g., warmth, morality, and competence) and values (e.g., conservation, self-transcendence, openness to change) of individuals within this imagined society. CFF work suggests that individuals infer various changes in people's character and societal functioning from summary descriptions of alternatives societies, and these inferred characteristics can guide their current behavior.

Further research has explored how the general perceived desirability of envisioned futures can influence motivation (Bosone et al., 2024; Fernando et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that perceived desirability is related to indicators from the CFF (Fernando et al., 2020), but the latter provides a more nuanced picture, notably by highlighting specific dimensions that individuals consider desirable. Finally, Fernando et al. (2020) examined participative efficacy - the extent to which participants believed that ordinary citizens would be capable of contributing to the creation of the envisioned society. This measure is particularly useful for understanding whether people feel empowered to bring about the future they imagine, a decisive factor in motivating social change behaviors.

## 3.2. How and when does collective positive prospection motivate social change behavior?

The studies reviewed revealed consistent patterns in the relationship between collective positive prospection and motivation for social change. Correlational studies systematically indicate that individuals who are more inclined and able to imagine positive collective futures are also more likely to participate in behaviors directed toward social change (7–14, 17, 24, 26–27, 31–33; see Appendix). Further evidence suggests that this relationship is not solely attributable to other individual characteristics, but that the very act of engaging in prospection itself activates motivations for social change. Indeed, several experimental studies have demonstrated that individuals’ engagement in collective positive prospection tasks increases their intentions to act in favor of social change, and these effects have been observed across various contexts and methods. A total of eleven studies (1, 13, 15–16, 18–22, 29–30; see Appendix) find a motivational effect of prospection on social change motivation, while only one did not (28; see Appendix). Understanding the reasons behind this exception is important, though it remains unclear whether it stems from the specific manipulation used or other factors. A possible explanation for this discrepancy will be discussed in the ‘Achievability of Collective Futures’ section.

Overall, the evidence suggests that, whether spontaneous or situationally induced, the imagination of collective futures that positively deviate from the status quo is an effective driver of social change behavior. However, it remains unclear why and under what conditions such prospection leads to social change motivation. In the following sections, we will summarize the empirical evidence addressing these questions, drawing on insights from related fields to provide further context. More precisely, we will review the evidence on (1) the mechanisms through which collective positive prospection can influence motivation (mediators), as well as (2) its conditional effects (moderators).

### 3.2.1. Mechanisms: how does collective positive prospection influence motivation for social change actions

This section examines the four main mechanisms identified in the literature explaining how collective positive prospection can drive motivation for social change (see Table 3 for a summary).

#### 3.2.1.1. Achievability of Collective Futures.
A convincing hypothesis is that collective positive prospection can motivate change by enhancing

<caption>Table 3</caption>

Proposed mechanisms of the influence of collective positive prospection on motivation for social change.

<table><thead><tr><td>Mechanism</td><td>Summary of Evidence</td><td>Key References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Achievability of Collective Futures</td><td>Collective positive prospection increases the perception that envisioned futures are achievable, which in turn motivates action. Mediation analyses have confirmed that this perception mediates the effect of prospection on motivation for social change.</td><td>Wenzel et al. (2024), Daysh et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td>Criticism of the Status Quo</td><td>Collective positive prospection can reduce satisfaction with the current society and decrease system justification. This increased criticism of the status quo is associated with greater motivation for social change. However, mediation via criticism of the status quo has not been directly tested.</td><td>Badaan et al. (2022), Fernando et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Desirability of Collective Futures</td><td>While some studies suggest that collective positive prospection can increase the desirability of envisioned futures, the role of desirability as a direct mediator between prospection and motivation for social change has not been tested or confirmed in current research.</td><td>Bosone et al. (2024), Wenzel et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td>Abstraction of Collective Goals</td><td>One study has explored whether collective positive prospection could induce a higher level of abstraction, and, in turn, increase motivation for social change. However, this study found no significant relationship between abstraction induced by prospection and motivation.</td><td>Badaan et al. (2022)</td></tr></tbody></table>

the perception of the envisioned future as achievable. Seminal research has demonstrated that individuals tend to rely on the ease with which they can imagine events to infer their likelihood of occurrence (i.e., availability heuristic, Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Consequently, the more accessible an event is to the imagination, the more likely it is perceived to occur, and making a possibility more accessible, for example by imagining it, increases its perceived probability of occurrence. In a well-known study, Carroll (1978) showed for instance that individuals are more likely to consider a candidate as the potential winner of an election after being asked to imagine their victory.

In the context of societal transformation, this suggests that by considering how things could be different (i.e., collective positive prospection), individuals’ confidence that they will or can be different can be enhanced (i.e., perceived achievability). Such confidence has been previously described under various terms and theoretical frameworks, including hope (e.g., Geiger et al., 2023), agency (e.g., Fritsche, 2024), efficacy beliefs (e.g., Hamann et al., 2021), or perceived likelihood of success (e.g., Bury et al., 2020). In our review we found eleven studies that corroborate the hypothesis that collective positive prospection can motivate action through these paths (1,13, 15–16, 22, 27, 29–33; see Appendix). Correlational results have shown that the more individuals reported being able to imagine an ecological future (i.e., environmental cognitive alternatives), the more they believed it was plausible to achieve a decarbonized world over the next few decades, and that it was feasible for citizens to change their lifestyles to achieve this (Bosone et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2020, 2022). Similarly, access to environmental cognitive alternatives has been shown to be linked to a stronger belief in collective and participative efficacy in addressing environmental problems (Bosone et al., 2024; Wright et al., 2022) and to a greater sense of hope about the possibility of mitigating them
(Syropoulos et al., 2024). Similar results have been observed in a field study conducted by Hamann et al. (2021), where participants were coached on – among other things – envisioning a sustainable future. After this intervention, participants had a better vision of what a sustainable university might look like, and having such a vision predicted efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to promote sustainable development and to participate significantly in collective efforts toward it (self and participative efficacy).

Further studies have confirmed causal links between collective positive prospection and the perception of the envisioned future as achievable. For instance, exposure to eco-friendly scenarios has been shown to enhance perceived collective efficacy and the feasibility of achieving a decarbonized world (Bosone et al., 2024). Badaan et al. (2022) also found that participants exposed to an article describing an ideal society reported greater hope than those who read an unrelated article, which in turn predicted their intentions to engage in collective actions for social change and equality.

Importantly, mediation analyses have directly confirmed this mechanism. Wenzel et al. (2024) demonstrated in two experimental studies that engaging in collective positive prospection tasks (vs. no task) increased support for collective action, and this effect was fully mediated by heightened hope for achieving the envisioned future (either climate change mitigation or economic equality). Similarly, Daysh et al. (2024) showed through two experimental studies that participants who were engaged in a collective positive prospection task focused on envisioning a future where climate change had been significantly addressed exhibited enhanced intentions to take collective climate action through increased feelings of general hope. Notably, this effect persisted even when compared to an active control condition in which participants reflected on the current reality of climate change (Study 2). However, in contrast to Wenzel et al. (2024), Daysh et al. found that the prospection task also had a direct effect on intentions beyond the influence of hope (Study 1), suggesting other pathways of influence.

Overall, the hypothesis that collective positive prospection motivates action by making the envisioned future seem more achievable is well supported. This hypothesis aligns with evidence from the availability heuristic, which suggests that an increased ability to imagine an event leads to a higher perceived probability of its occurrence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). However, it remains unclear whether an enhanced ability to envision positive collective futures is a necessary condition for activating this path, and whether all prospection tasks increase the accessibility of such futures. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the only experimental study that did not find a motivational effect of prospection (Troy et al., 2024) also failed to increase participants' ability to imagine the envisioned future. This raises the possibility that motivation may only emerge when accessibility is heightened. However, this hypothesis requires further empirical validation, especially since we do not know whether the experimental studies that found an effect on motivation also successfully enhanced this capacity for imagination (except for Bosone et al., 2024).

Moreover, additional research is needed to clarify which specific aspects of perceived achievability are most effective in driving motivation. Hope, likelihood, and efficacy beliefs may exert varying levels of influence on motivation. For instance, interventions aimed at enhancing hope or belief in the possibility of societal change have yielded inconclusive results for motivating action (Geiger et al., 2023; Ojala, 2023). For this reason, some scholars have started to question whether agency (e.g., efficacy beliefs) may be more important than hope (Geiger et al., 2023; van Zomeren et al., 2019, 2021). The motivational effects of these constructs can also vary depending on how they are operationalized. A meta-analysis in the context of climate change suggests, for instance, that the motivational influence of hope depends on its target: general hope appears less effective than hope linked to specific actions or goals (Geiger et al., 2023). Lastly, other studies suggest that the effects of hope, efficacy, and perceived likelihood on behaviors can depend on each other (Bury et al., 2020; Cohen-Chen & Van Zomeren, 2018). In

short, many questions remain unanswered and warrant further investigation. Nevertheless, the current review identifies a general pattern: when people imagine how things could be different, they also tend to believe that they can be different, which is associated with higher social change motivation.

3.2.1.2. Criticism of status quo. Another compelling hypothesis for how collective positive prospection can motivate intentions for social change is through its capacity to heighten criticism of the current society. According to Levitas (1990), one function of imagining better, utopian societies is to activate criticism of existing reality. Imagining better collective futures can serve as a comparison standard to the status quo, thereby highlighting the limitations and challenges of today's society. Similarly, research on personal counterfactual thinking suggests that comparing oneself to a better alternative often results in more negative self-assessments, which may fuel self-improvement motives (Epstude & Roese, 2008; Roese & Epstude, 2017).

In our review, a total of eight studies examined the links between collective positive prospection, criticism of the status quo, and motivation for social change (1,17–19, 30–33; see Appendix). Findings indicated that individuals who frequently think about their ideal society, and value such thoughts, tend to express lower satisfaction with the current society and reduced system justification (Fernando et al., 2018, Study 1), although these associations were not always consistent across samples. Two studies also found that people with a greater ability to imagine an ecological society were more likely to perceive the unsustainable status quo as illegitimate (Wright et al., 2020). However, a later study, conducted in Canada instead of the United States, failed to replicate these results, possibly due to the legitimacy measure's poor internal consistency or cross-national differences (Wright et al., 2022).

Studies that have experimentally induced collective positive prospection also show evidence of reduced satisfaction with society and system justification when compared to control conditions (Badaan et al., 2022; Fernando et al., 2018, Studies 2–3; but see Wenzel et al., 2024 for contrasting findings). While Fernando et al. (2018) only tested the parallel effects of prospection on change motivation and criticism of current society, Badaan et al. (2022) took this further by suggesting that criticism may directly drive motivation for social change. Their study demonstrated that participants who imagined an ideal sustainable society reported lower system justification tendencies, and in turn, lower system justification predicted higher motivation for collective action. This finding aligns with longstanding research on system justification, which shows that lower system justification is associated with greater engagement in social change efforts (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, 2005).

Another relevant perspective comes from research on individual fantasy (Oettingen, 2012), which has shown that positive fantasies about one's future can motivate change - but only when these fantasies are mentally contrasted with one's current negative situation, and in this specific sequence. Building on this, Fernando et al. (2018, Study 3) explored whether a similar effect might be observable in collective mental contrasting - the mental comparison of an ideal society with the current one. In this experiment, participants were assigned to one of five conditions: imagining an ideal society (Utopia condition), describing the current society (Current Society condition), imagining their utopia first and then their current society (Mental Contrasting condition), the reverse (Reverse Contrasting condition), or writing about an ordinary day (Current Life condition). Based on individual fantasy research, only the Mental Contrasting condition was expected to enhance goal pursuit. However, results showed that mental contrasting and utopian imagination alone had similar effects on change motivation, satisfaction with current society, and system justification. This suggests that collective positive prospection may inherently involve mental contrasting; when people consider a positive alternative for society, they naturally compare it to the present, making the shortcomings of the current society more salient.
This potential mechanism of inherent mental comparison could
explain why collective positive prospection often triggers critical re-
flections on the status quo, which, in turn, can foster motivation for
social change. A total of six studies support the link between collective
positive prospection and criticism of status quo (Badaan et al., 2022;
Fernando et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2020), and, in line with evidence
from system justification theory (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, 2005), this
increased criticism is associated with stronger intentions for social
change. However, further research is required to determine whether the
effect of prospection on motivation is indeed mediated, in part, by
increased criticism of society.

Moreover, it is important to note that two studies found no signifi-
cant association between prospection and criticism of the status quo
(Wenzel et al., 2024, Study 2; Wright et al., 2022). In the first case, this
may be due to the poor internal consistency of measure or cross-national
differences (Wright et al., 2022). In the second case, where the pro-
spection task focused on economic equality had no effect on the ten-
dency to (de)legitimize economic inequality, the explanation could lie in
the sample composition (Wenzel et al., 2024, Study 2). Indeed, partici-
pants who completely rejected the existence or relevance of economic
inequality were excluded from the study. As a result, the remaining
sample likely consisted of individuals who already acknowledged the
issue to some degree, which may have limited the potential for further
shifts in their criticism following the prospection task. While these fac-
tors may account for some of the discrepancies, the existence of studies
with divergent findings suggests that further research is needed to better
establish the relationship between prospection and criticism and to
clarify the conditions under which this effect is most likely to occur.

3.2.1.3. *Desirability of collective futures (as a mediator)*. Another, less explored way in which collective positive prospection might promote social change is by increasing the desirability of the envisioned future. A few studies, though not directly focused on collective futures, suggest that the act of imagination itself can enhance the perceived desirability of the envisioned outcomes. For instance, Lebreton et al. (2013) found that the more participants engaged in detailed mental imagery of future options, the more they rated those future outcomes as desirable. More generally, Mastroianni and Ludwin-Peery (2022) showed that when individuals are asked to consider how things might be different, they tend to imagine how things could be better, more desirable.

Thus, when considering an alternative for society, people could
easily recognize how it could be better than the current one, and by
imagining it in detail, the overall perceived desirability of the envi-
sioned future may increase. Two experimental studies in our review
support this effect (13, 30; see Appendix). Bosone et al. (2024)
demonstrated that participants rated a decarbonized future more posi-
tively after being presented with detailed positive scenarios of envi-
ronmentally sustainable futures, compared to a control condition.
Positive ratings - measured through items like "I would gladly live in a
decarbonized society" - were also associated with higher
pro-environmental intentions.

Similarly, Wenzel et al. (2024) tested in two experimental studies
whether prospection tasks could increase the perceived desirability of
the collective goals on which the tasks focused. In their study, the
measure of perceived desirability was thus slightly different from
Bosone et al. (2024), as it did not directly assess the envisioned future
but rather the desirability of achieving specific goals depicted (e.g.,
"How desirable is it for Australia to achieve greater economic
equality?"). They found that prospection focused on economic equality
increased the perceived desirability of this goal (Study 2), but this effect
was not observed for climate change (Study 1). The authors speculated
that climate change mitigation may already be perceived as highly
desirable by most people, which could explain the lack of change in
desirability ratings. Nevertheless, in both studies by Wenzel and col-
laborators, higher perceived desirability of the goals was linked to

greater motivation for associated social change.

Overall, the hypothesis that prospection may influence motivation
by increasing the desirability of the envisioned future remains under-
explored. While two experimental studies (Bosone et al., 2024; Wenzel
et al., 2024, Study 2) suggest that perceived desirability can change
through prospection, and that desirability is linked to social change
motivation, no studies have directly tested its role as a mediator between
prospection and motivation.

3.2.1.4. *Abstraction of collective goals*. Research indicates that distant goals requiring self-control are more effectively pursued when framed at a higher level of mental construal, as this enables individuals to engage in better self-regulation and resist the temptation of immediate rewards (Fujita & Carnevale, 2012). For instance, Fujita and Han (2009) demonstrated that adopting an abstract perspective, as opposed to a concrete one, increased dieters' preference for apples over candy bars. This implies that adopting an abstract perspective might help individuals in avoiding harmful short-term behaviors and might instead emphasize the relevance and importance of their long-term goals.

According to Construal Level Theory (CLT; Trope & Liberman,
2010), high-level construals refer to abstract, generalized representa-
tions of events or goals, while low-level construals are more concrete
and detail oriented. Low-level construals are useful for addressing im-
mediate tasks that require close attention to detail, while high-level
construals help individuals transcend the immediate context, giving
them a functional advantage in processing distant objects or goals. As
such, abstraction is likely just as important for transcending the here and
now in the pursuit of collective long-term goals requiring self-control as
it is for personal ones. Achieving complex goals such as environmental,
social, and economic sustainability often requires sacrificing short-term
individual interests in favor of promoting the greater common good in
the long term (e.g., Milfont & Gouveia, 2006; Olson, 1968).

In our review, only one study explored the role of construal level in
the motivational effect of collective positive prospection (1; see Ap-
pendix). Badaan et al. (2022) hypothesized that the imagination of
better, ideal societies would induce an abstract mindset (vs. a concrete
one), because ideal futures are psychologically distant from the current
reality (see also Badaan et al., 2020). In line with the above-mentioned
research, they expected that abstraction, in turn, would encourage in-
dividuals to engage in behaviors oriented toward social change. Results
showed that individuals were indeed more likely to adopt an abstract
mindset after being engaged in a collective positive prospection task.
However, adopting an abstract mindset (high level construals) only
marginally predicted increased collective action intentions in their
study. The authors argued that a possible cause of this lack of effect
could depend on the CLT measure used, which could capture disposi-
tional, rather than state-dependent mindsets. Another possible expla-
nation is that the envisioned collective future (i.e., an ideal sustainable
society) did not necessarily align with the participants' personal goals,
reducing the motivational influence.

Thus, further research is needed to clarify the role of abstraction in
mediating the motivational effects of collective positive prospection. It is
also worth considering that the imagination of collective futures may not
necessarily imply the use of abstraction but may depend for instance on
the instruction given for the imagination task or the level of detailed
information given on the collective future (e.g., see Bosone et al., 2024).
In turn, detailed, low-level information may be equally beneficial for
driving motivation. Indeed, it has been shown that vividness – concrete
and detailed visualization – can enhance information accessibility (e.g.,
Blondé & Girandola, 2016; Shedler & Manis, 1986), which could
consequently increase the perceived achievability possibilities of the
future envisioned (see availability heuristic mentioned above; Braga et al.,
2015). Additionally, abstraction is closely tied to psychological distance,
with a bidirectional relationship: the more abstract a representation, the
more distant the object appears, and vice versa (Soderberg et al., 2015).
While reducing the psychological distance of perceived climate change impacts (i.e., problems) has been widely debated as an effective strategy to motivate action (e.g., Keller et al., 2022; van Valkengoed et al., 2023), less is known about the role of perceived psychological distance in relation to ecological futures (i.e., solutions; Fine, 2024). Evidence in the context of self-enhancement suggests that people are more motivated to pursue goals when they are perceived as close rather than distant (e.g., Peetz et al., 2009). Therefore, it is possible that concrete thinking about positive collective futures could reduce their perceived psychological distance and make them seem more attainable, thereby increasing motivation to pursue them. We believe that these considerations open valuable avenues for future research, not only in the context of prospection but also regarding the (understudied) role of proximating positive societal transformations (e.g., Fine, 2024).

### 3.2.2. Conditions: when does collective positive prospection motivate action?

In this section, we review the four main moderators that have been identified in the literature as influencing when prospection leads to motivation for social change (see Table 4 for a summary).

#### 3.2.2.1. Desirability of collective futures (as a moderator).
While the perceived desirability of collective futures may be increased through the act of imagining them (e.g., Wenzel et al., 2024), it may also play a moderating role in the motivational effects of prospection (20–21; see Appendix). Indeed, Fernando et al. (2020) found in two experimental studies that prospection of an ecological society motivated participants to pursue change only when the future was positively evaluated. Thus, participants’ general assessment of the prospected future’s appeal (e.g., "I find the life and world described to be unappealing") moderated the relationship between the prospection task and motivation for social change.

Consistently, research on the Collective Future Framework (Bain et al., 2012, 2013; Judge & Wilson, 2015; Milfont et al., 2014) showed that the more individuals attribute positive consequences to achieving a specific collective future, both at an individual (changes in individuals’ traits and values) and a societal level (societal dysfunction and development changes), the more they are motivated to act in favor of that future. Interestingly, evidence suggests that the belief in a rise in

<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Identified moderators influencing the effectiveness of collective positive prospection on motivation.

<table><thead><tr><td>Moderators</td><td>Summary of Evidence</td><td>Key References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Desirability of Collective Futures</td><td>Motivation is stronger when envisioned futures are perceived as desirable. However, highlighting co-benefits can increase motivation among a wider population.</td><td>Fernando et al. (2020); Bain et al. (2012, 2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Conditions of Achievability</td><td>The effect of prospection is conditional on the extent to which the achievement of the future is perceived as requiring the involvement of ordinary citizens.</td><td>Fernando et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Temporal Distance of Collective Futures</td><td>The temporal distance of the envisioned future influences the mechanisms by which prospection affects motivation. In particular, temporal distance alters how hope is generated: perceived possibility is more important for near futures, while desirability is more important for distant futures.</td><td>Wenzel et al. (2024)</td></tr><tr><td>Prior Beliefs</td><td>Prospection is more effective among individuals already engaged in or concerned about the issue.</td><td>Bosone et al. (2024); Troy et al. (2024)</td></tr></tbody></table>

benevolence within the population was one of the most consistent motivators for social change across various contexts (e.g., Bain et al., 2013).

Thus, the general perceived desirability of an envisioned future and consideration of broader co-benefits, even those concerning people’s traits and values, appear to play a significant role in motivating action for change. Despite the apparent, and unsurprising, conditional effect of desirability on prospection’s motivational impact, many experimental studies in the review did not directly control for this factor and yet still observed positive effects of prospection on motivation (e.g., Badaan et al., 2022). This suggests that there was likely a relative consensus regarding the desirability of most of the collective positive futures that have been studied. For instance, achieving climate change mitigation is typically viewed as both positive and urgent by the general population.

However, it is important to recognize that not all collective futures aligned with SDGs are perceived positively by everyone, and for some, they may even represent dystopian futures (as noted by Basso & Krpan, 2022). Nevertheless, a priori negative perceptions of certain collective futures do not appear to be an insurmountable barrier to observing the positive effects of prospection on motivation. Bain et al. (2012) demonstrated in an experimental study (Study 2) that it is possible to motivate environmental action even among climate change deniers by highlighting positive secondary outcomes associated with a future where climate change is mitigated. Specifically, when participants were told that limiting climate change would result in increased interpersonal warmth in society or in economic and scientific development, they reported stronger pro-environmental intentions than when the only consequence described was the avoidance of climate-related risks. Bain et al. (2016) replicated these patterns across 24 countries, among both climate change believers and deniers. In this study, participants were asked to consider what their nation would be like if people had taken action to mitigate climate change and then assessed the potential co-benefits of such a future using the Collective Future Framework. The results showed that the more individuals believed that climate change mitigation would lead to increased benevolence among the population, as well as economic and scientific development, the more willing they were to adopt pro-environmental behaviors. Importantly, these effects were consistent for both climate change believers and deniers, though for the latter group, the link between intentions and beliefs in development was stronger.

Thus, even though collective futures aligned with SDGs may not be universally perceived as desirable and thus may not always be motivating (Fernando et al., 2020), it remains possible to frame such futures in ways that make them appealing through alternative pathways, and consequently to motivate a broader segment of the population to pursue them (Bain et al., 2012, 2016). More detailed analyses of individuals’ socio-psychological profiles could help identify which types of co-benefits associated with achieving certain positive collective futures are considered most important - and therefore more motivating. Such information would be valuable for designing targeted interventions and communication strategies aimed at fostering positive behavioral changes.

#### 3.2.2.2. Conditions of achievability.
While the studies mentioned earlier suggest that collective positive prospection *per se* can increase the perception of the envisioned future as achievable (and thus motivates action for social change, e.g., Wenzel et al., 2024), two other studies (20–21; see Appendix) nuance this effect by showing that it may depend on the type of future being imagined (i.e., the *content* of the prospection itself).

In these experimental studies (Fernando et al., 2020), participants were asked to read, imagine, and describe future scenarios of either a Green Utopia – a society focused on sustainable technology and material sufficiency - or a Sci-Fi Utopia - a technologically advanced society with an abundant lifestyle free from material limitations - or to describe an ordinary day in their life (control condition). In their first study, the
authors found that prospection focused on the Green Utopia - but not the Sci-Fi Utopia - had a positive effect (when evaluated positively) on individuals' motivation for general social change. In a second study, they further investigated the reasons behind these results by adding a measure of perceived participative efficacy after the same experimental tasks, operationalized as the extent to which ordinary people were perceived to be capable of contributing to the creation of the envisioned society. They also measured specific motivations related to each utopia: environmental strivings for the Green Utopia and economic and personal quality-of-life strivings for the Sci-Fi Utopia.

The findings revealed that the motivational effect of the Green Utopia was driven by a stronger sense of participative efficacy. Specifically, participative efficacy mediated the relationship between the Green Utopia and increased environmental strivings, with this effect being particularly pronounced when participants viewed the future vision positively. Conversely, participants perceived less personal agency in realizing the Sci-Fi Utopia, and this scenario did not generate higher economic, or quality-of-life motivations compared to the Green Utopia.

These findings highlight that not every collective positive future has the potential to motivate action: an important role is played by *how* the envisioned positive outcomes are believed to be, or described as being, achieved. Certain futures, such as the Sci-Fi Utopia, may fail to motivate change because their realization does not require participation or behavioral shifts from citizens. The development of new technologies and scientific advancements is typically not viewed as an area where individuals play an active role. In contrast, the Green Utopia (Fernando et al., 2020) and other future scenarios grounded in ecological sustainability through sufficiency (e.g., Bosone et al., 2024) demand meaningful changes from citizens, thus fostering a greater sense of agency and motivation to act.

In sum, the effectiveness of collective positive prospection seems to depend on the nature of the envisioned future, particularly on how its realization is framed (Fernando et al., 2020). Futures that emphasize individual and collective agency are more likely to inspire change than those that seem to rely on external forces beyond people's control. Therefore, integrating a sense of active participation in the achievement of prospected futures seems essential for fostering social change motives.

### 3.2.2.3. Temporal distance of the collective futures.
In two studies (29–30; see Appendix), Wenzel et al. (2024) manipulated the temporal psychological distance of positive collective futures by asking participants to imagine these futures occurring either two years from the present or in the year 2050. Interestingly, they found that temporal distance did not significantly impact participants’ intentions to act in support of these futures, nor did it affect their hope for achieving the envisioned futures (Study 1). However, this result should be interpreted with caution, as the task may not have effectively induced a sense of temporal proximity. A manipulation check revealed that in the "near future" condition, participants reported imagining a relatively distant future.

Nonetheless, temporal distance did influence how participants processed information about the envisioned futures. More precisely, it had a conditional effect on the mechanism through which collective positive prospection influences motivation. In line with Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), Wenzel et al. (2024) found that the strength of the relationship between hope (which mediated the effect of prospection on intention) and two key appraisals - desirability and possibility - varied depending on the temporal distance of the imagined future. Specifically, perceived possibility (i.e., the likelihood of successfully addressing the challenge) was more strongly related to hope when the future was imagined to be near rather than distant. This finding aligns with the assumption that shorter psychological distance corresponds to a low-level construal, where people focus on concrete

issues and practicalities (the “how”). In contrast, desirability (i.e., the personal significance of achieving the future) was more strongly related to hope when the future was imagined as distant, consistent with the notion that greater temporal distance induces high-level construal, where people emphasize abstract values and principles (the “why”).

While these findings do not yet provide conclusive evidence of the direct influence of temporal distance of prospection on motivation, they suggest that temporal framing can shape the cognitive mechanisms (i.e., desirability vs. possibility) through which hope is generated (Wenzel et al., 2024). Thus, the temporal framing of collective positive futures may play a role in determining which aspects of hope - either a belief in the possibility of success or a desirability of the goal - are more salient, depending on whether the future is perceived as near or distant.

### 3.2.2.4. Prior beliefs.
Two studies have examined whether individuals’ pre-existing beliefs can moderate the effects of collective positive prospection tasks on motivation for social change (see Studies 13, 28 in Appendix). Bosone et al. (2024) found that both the perceived psychological distance of climate change and pro-environmental self-identification acted as moderators in the relationship between prospection tasks and intentions. Specifically, their analysis revealed that prospection tasks focused on climate change mitigation only significantly influenced intentions when participants perceived the threat of climate change as moderately to highly close and identified themselves as moderately to highly pro-environmental. Similarly, Troy et al. (2024) explored the role of collective efficacy beliefs in moderating the effects of prospection on general hope. They found that prospection tasks (also focused on climate change mitigation) increased hope only among participants with higher prior collective efficacy beliefs, i.e., those who already believed in the collective ability to address climate change.

Taken together, these findings suggest that prospection tasks may be less, if at all, effective for individuals who are not already somewhat convinced of the issue or who do not feel confident that collective action can make a difference. This consideration presents a challenge for the use of collective positive prospection as a tool for motivating social change, as its effectiveness appears to be contingent on participants’ prior engagement or beliefs about the issue. However, it is important to re-emphasize that some studies in this review suggest that positive effects of prospection can still be observed among individuals with lower initial engagement under certain conditions. Bain et al. (2012, 2016) found that emphasizing co-benefits - showing how tackling climate change can lead to broader societal improvements - can enhance motivation even among those less convinced about the primary issue. These findings highlight the need for prospection tasks that can engage a wider audience by addressing or sidestepping pre-existing beliefs.

## 4. Discussion and future directions

This paper offers the first systematic review of empirical studies examining how imagining positive collective futures - what we term *collective positive prospection* - influences motivation for social change. By consolidating the diverse terminologies used in the literature under the same concept, our aim was to synthesize existing knowledge, provide an integrated view of methods and empirical findings, and outline paths for future inquiry.

The majority of studies included in the review corroborate the hypothesis that collective positive prospection enhances motivation to engage in social change. Several hypotheses have been explored to explain how and under what conditions prospection motivates action (see Fig. 2 for a summary). Specifically, we identified four main pathways through which the mental simulation of positive collective futures may drive social action: by enhancing the perceived *achievability* of the future, fostering *criticism* of the status quo, promoting *abstraction*, and increasing the perceived *desirability* of the envisioned future. While these
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Overview of proposed mechanisms and conditional effects of collective positive prospection on social change motivation.</figcaption></figure>

mechanisms represent promising avenues for understanding how prospection motivates action, more empirical studies are needed to substantiate their roles. Of the mechanisms identified, achievability (operationalized as either affective or cognitive constructs) has received the most empirical support (e.g., Wenzel et al., 2024). The roles of status quo criticism, abstraction (or concreteness), and desirability, however, deserve further investigation in future research. Additionally, it will be important to explore whether these mechanisms may have cumulative effects on motivation. There are also good reasons to believe that these elements are interconnected. For example, research has shown that the perceived desirability of an outcome and its perceived likelihood of occurrence can mutually influence each other (Kay et al., 2002). Similarly, more complex relationships may exist, including parallel and serial multiple mediations (e.g., Badaan et al., 2020, 2022).

Our review also suggests that collective positive prospection may inherently increase the *accessibility* of positive futures and foster *mental comparisons* with the status quo. These cognitive features likely contribute to activating the mechanisms discussed. Specifically, the accessibility of positive futures is hypothesized to enhance the perceived achievability of the envisioned future (consistent with the availability heuristic; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), while mental comparisons may intensify criticism of the status quo (e.g., Fernando et al., 2018). It is also possible to consider that accessibility and mental comparisons may activate other mechanisms. For example, mental comparisons between the present and a better future could amplify the desirability of the envisioned alternative, thereby strengthening the motivation to pursue it. However, it remains generally unclear whether accessibility and mental comparisons are inherent to all forms of prospection, or whether they are necessary to activate motivation for social change.

In addition to these mechanisms, the literature suggests that the motivational effects of collective positive prospection may not be unconditional. Factors such as the *desirability* of the envisioned future (e.g., Fernando et al., 2020) and individuals' *prior beliefs* about the issues at hand (e.g., Bosone et al., 2024) play a moderating role. Nevertheless, research also shows that even for individuals initially less inclined to support a particular future, emphasizing co-benefits of achieving these futures can enhance motivation (e.g., Bain et al., 2016). This suggests that under certain conditions, collective positive prospection has thus the potential to be an effective tool for encouraging social change behavior among a broad range of individuals.

Despite these promising findings, several gaps remain that future research must address. From a methodological perspective, a significant challenge is the lack of experimental designs that effectively isolate the unique effects of collective positive prospection. Consequently, future

research should exercise caution when interpreting the effect sizes reported in the current literature, as they may be overestimated. Moreover, future studies should prioritize sample diversity, as most current research relies on WEIRD populations (Rad et al., 2018), which limits the generalizability of findings. It is also important to more thoroughly account for socio-demographic variables, such as socio-economic status, which is known to influence future orientation (Fieulaine & Apostolidis, 2014). Expanding beyond self-reported intentions or behaviors to examine the effects of prospection on real-world actions, as well as exploring long-term behavioral outcomes, would further enhance the validity of findings.

Additionally, there is a need to compare different methods of imagining collective futures, particularly differentiating between *active elaboration* - where participants generate their own visions - and *passive reception* of predefined scenarios, or even mixed approaches. This could help identify which processes are most effective in fostering the motivational effects of prospection. A promising methodological avenue for future research lies in exploring the *collaborative construction* of collective visions of the future. Since collective visions are typically shaped through social interaction and shared understanding (Glaveanu, 2018), involving participants in these co-construction processes could provide more ecologically valid insights into how prospection is generated. This approach may also reveal how the shared nature of these visions influences motivation, offering a clearer understanding of how prospection functions in real-world contexts.

It is also important to note that current tools for assessing the ease with which individuals can generate future scenarios (i.e., accessibility), or for evaluating the quality of these visions, remain limited. The Environmental Cognitive Alternatives (Wright et al., 2020) scale remains the only available tool to assess participants' perceived capacity to envision futures, yet it was not specifically developed for this purpose and is restricted to ecological themes. Research on other forms of prospection could provide valuable insights into more objective methods of measurement (e.g., Miloyan & McFarlane, 2019), though such approaches remain rare, particularly in the context of semantic prospection (e.g., Szpunar et al., 2014). Additionally, future research would benefit from more comprehensive scales for measuring individual differences in collective positive prospection (Chevrier et al., 2024) that could be applied to various themes (e.g., ecology, equality, education).

Finally, from a theoretical perspective, while more research is needed to consolidate findings on already proposed mediators, it would also be beneficial to explore potential additional mechanisms. For instance, *normative conflict* can arise from engagement in collective positive prospection. By comparing how things *are* to how they *could be*,
individuals' moral convictions about how things *should be* may be heightened - an important predictor of social change actions (e.g., see Bamberg et al., 2018). Additionally, there are likely connections to be explored with research on *dynamic norms*, which suggests that individuals can preconform to anticipated norms (Sparkman & Walton, 2017). In this way, if a prospected future is perceived as highly probable and the associated changes are seen as already gaining momentum, preconformity may occur.

It is also important to consider that the relationships proposed in the literature to explain how and when collective positive prospection motivates action could work in multiple directions. For example, while the literature suggests that collective positive prospection increases perceptions of achievability of envisioned futures and criticism of the status quo, other directions of influence are also plausible. Specifically, if individuals believe that the status quo can change (i.e., is unstable) and should change (i.e., is not legitimate), this might also facilitate the emergence of imagined alternative futures (e.g., Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

## 4.1. Limitations

This review is subject to several limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, some of the empirical findings included in the review may be restricted to the specific themes on which the imagination of collective futures was focused. Notably, most of the studies primarily examined ecological futures, which raises questions about the generalizability of these findings to other domains of social improvement. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that our review currently did not identify major differences by thematic focus and the theories mobilized in prospection literature (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) would lead to similar predictions across themes. While the overrepresentation of ecological themes is understandable - given their urgency, their dominant presence in prospective scenarios (e.g., IPCC reports) and in individuals' future-oriented thinking (e.g., Kantenbacher et al., 2022), as well as the current efforts to integrate them into public debate (e.g., Thiriot, 2022) - it is essential to expand research to other domains. We should also consider the possibility that our search strategy - particularly the inclusion of numerous keywords related to environmental and sustainable themes - may have contributed to the emphasis on these futures. However, we do not believe that this alone accounts for the observed overrepresentation of environmental themes, as we supplemented the keyword search with article identification through primary studies, as well as through alerts for new publications.

A second limitation, inherent to any review, is the potential presence of publication bias, which may inflate the strength of the conclusions due to the underrepresentation of studies with null or negative findings. Moreover, in aiming to provide an integrative synthesis, this review prioritized key conclusions across studies over an in-depth analysis of specific theoretical models (e.g., Badaan et al., 2020). Although this approach may have overlooked some nuances, it was the most suitable given the lack of a dominant model in the literature. Relatedly, while this review identified overarching patterns, comparing differences in findings across studies was not possible due to variations in study populations, the operationalization of manipulations and measures, or other factors. In some cases, we discussed how such variability might influence results, but a more systematic examination of these between-study differences will only be feasible as the body of research expands.

Lastly, a significant limitation of this review is that it does not account for the potential negative effects of collective positive prospection on social change intentions. Some evidence suggests that prospection may lead to increased escapism, where individuals disengage from reality rather than being motivated to act (Fernando et al., 2018). Additionally, imagining positive futures has been shown to reduce fear related to certain issues, as observed in Daysh et al. (2024), which can inadvertently lower the intention to engage in social change efforts. Furthermore, idealized visions of societies may be perceived as unrealistic, resulting in reactance to messages promoting such futures (Troy et al., 2024). These caveats highlight the need for future research to better understand the conditions under which collective positive prospection can effectively inspire social change without unintended negative consequences.

## 5. Conclusion

Collective positive prospection research, though still in its early stages, is opening new avenues for mobilizing individuals to address pressing global challenges, such as those related to planetary health. A growing number of studies suggest that imagining sustainable alternatives for the future can be a powerful driver of motivation for change. This process can enhance not only individuals' belief in the feasibility and desirability of such futures but also increase their awareness of the limitations of current society. Moreover, when emphasizing the co-benefits of realizing these futures, such visions have the potential to influence a wider audience, including those who may not initially be in favor of change. Despite existing gaps, this field expands our understanding of the factors that can drive societal transformation, moving beyond traditional psychological models of collective action (e.g., van Zomeren et al., 2008)—primarily focused on group-based concerns—to explore how envisioning desirable futures can encourage broader engagement and drive collective action (Fernando et al., 2020).

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

Chevrier M: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Bosone L: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Zenasni F: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. Delhomme P: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Léa Larchevêque and Alexane Luent for their help during the screening process of the articles.
# Appendix

## Summary of included studies

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th rowspan="2">Author(s), Year, Study number</th><th colspan="4">Study characteristics</th><th colspan="4">Collective Positive Prospection characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Study design</th><th>N</th><th>Country, sampling population</th><th>Women (%), Age (M, SD)</th><th>Theme</th><th>Individual Differences</th><th>Induction</th><th>Content Characteristic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Badaan et al. (2022)</td><td>Experimental</td><td>785</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>39.7 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 37.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.2</td><td>Sustainability</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Utopian Thinking: text reading about an ideal sustainable society</li><li>Control: text reading about a town</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Bain et al. (2012)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>Correlational</td><td>Australia (Climate changer deniers)</td><td>53 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 50.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 18.2</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td><ul><li>Collective Future Framework</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td>Study 2</td><td>Experimental</td><td>Australia (Climate change deniers and believers)</td><td>Deniers: 44%, M<sub>age</sub> = 50.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 16.1 Belivers: NA, M<sub>age</sub> = 47.0, SD<sub>age</sub> = 16.5</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td><ul><li>Real: text reading about how climate change action would avert environmental and health risks</li><li>Warmth: text reading about how climate change action would increase interpersonal warmth in society</li><li>Development: text reading about how climate change action would promote economic and scientific development</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Bain et al. (2013)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>Correlational</td><td>Australia, Community sample (Climate change believers)</td><td>55 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 40.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 13.8</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td><ul><li>Collective Future Framework</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td>Study 2</td><td>Correlational</td><td>Australia, Community and students</td><td>64 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 22.9, SD<sub>age</sub> = 8.5</td><td>Relaxing abortion laws</td><td></td><td></td><td><ul><li>Collective Future Framework</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Bain et al. (2016)</td><td></td><td>Correlational</td><td>Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA, Venezuela, Community and students</td><td></td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td><ul><li>Collective Future Framework</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th rowspan="2">Author(s), Year, Study number</th><th colspan="3">Study characteristics</th><th colspan="4">Collective Positive Prospection characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Study design</th><th>N</th><th>Country, sampling population</th><th>Women (%), Age (M, SD)</th><th>Theme</th><th>Individual Differences</th><th>Induction</th><th>Content Characteristic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7</td><td>Basso and Krpan (2022)</td><td>Study 2d</td><td>263</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>52.1 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 37.7, SD<sub>age</sub> = 12.0</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td></td><td>Study 3a</td><td>520</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>58.3 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 37.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 12.0</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH<br>• Utopian Thinking</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td></td><td>Study 3b</td><td>489</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>56.7 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 36.7, SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.6</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td></td><td>Study 3c</td><td>521</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>61.4 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 37.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.5</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH<br>• Utopian Thinking</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td></td><td>Study 3d</td><td>486</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>63.5 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 38.5, SD<sub>age</sub> = 12.6</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td></td><td>Study 4</td><td>799</td><td>UK, MTurk</td><td>50.9 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 48.2, SD<sub>age</sub> = 14.5</td><td>Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Bosone et al. (2024)</td><td>Experimental</td><td>300</td><td>France</td><td>50.3 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 29.7, SD<sub>age</sub> = 8.2</td><td>Ecology</td><td>• ECA</td><td></td><td>• Desirability</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Chevrier et al. (2024)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>485</td><td>UK and US, Prolific</td><td>49.5 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 35–44, SD<sub>age</sub> = 1.4</td><td>Ideal, Ecology, Sustainability</td><td>• TUIPH<br>• ECA<br>• Utopian Thinking</td><td></td><td>• Sufficiency: text reading about a 2050 society focused on eco-efficiency<br>• Eco-efficiency: text reading about a 2050 society focused on eco-sufficiency<br>• Control: no task</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Daysh et al. (2024)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>413</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>48 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 39.6, SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.7</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td>• Utopian Thinking: imagining, choosing images, and writing about a positive future where climate change has been significantly addressed<br>• Dystopian Thinking: imagining, choosing images, and writing about a negative future, where climate change has not been significantly addressed<br>• Control: no task</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td></td><td>Study 2</td><td>444</td><td>US, Prolific</td><td>44.4 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 39.8, SD<sub>age</sub> = 13.2</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td>• Utopian Thinking: imagining, choosing images, and</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th rowspan="2">Author(s), Year, Study number</th><th colspan="4">Study characteristics</th><th colspan="4">Collective Positive Prospection characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Study design</th><th>N</th><th>Country, sampling population</th><th>Women (%), Age (M, SD)</th><th>Theme</th><th>Individual Differences</th><th>Induction</th><th>Content Characteristic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>17</td><td>Fernando et al. (2018)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>Correlational</td><td>101 (Sample 1)<br>102 (Sample 2)<br>138 (Sample 3)</td><td>US, MTurk (Sample 1, 3)<br>UK, Prolific (Sample 2)</td><td>46.5 %,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 34.7,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 10.6<br>(Sample 1)<br>55.9 %,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 34.2,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.7<br>(Sample 2)<br>58 %,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 35.6,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 10.1<br>(Sample 3)</td><td>Ideal</td><td>• Utopian Thinking</td><td>writing about a positive future where climate change has been significantly addressed<br><ul><li>Dystopian Thinking: imagining, choosing images, and writing about a negative future where climate change has not been significantly addressed</li><li>Control: no task</li><li>Active control: imagining and considering the present-day reality in relation to climate change</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td></td><td>Study 2</td><td>Experimental</td><td>201</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>48.2 %,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 33.9,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 12.1</td><td>Ideal</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Utopian imagination: imagining and describing ideal society</li><li>Utopian imagination + Utopian appraisal: imagining and describing ideal society + scale completion (Utopian appraisal and emotion)</li><li>Utopian imagination + Current appraisal: imagining and describing ideal society + scale completion (Current society appraisal and emotion)</li></ul></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th rowspan="2">Author(s), Year, Study number</th><th colspan="4">Study characteristics</th><th colspan="4">Collective Positive Prospection characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Study design</th><th>N</th><th>Country, sampling population</th><th>Women (%), Age (M, SD)</th><th>Theme</th><th>Individual Differences</th><th>Induction</th><th>Content Characteristic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>19</td><td>Study 3</td><td>Experimental</td><td>197</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>44.2%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 34.0,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 10.5</td><td>Ideal</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Control: no task</li><li>Utopian imagination: writing about their ideal society</li><li>Mental contrasting: writing about their ideal society then their current society</li><li>Reverse: writing about their current society then their ideal society</li><li>Current society: writing task about their current society</li><li>Current life: writing task about an ordinary day in their life</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Fernando et al. (2020)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>Experimental</td><td>124</td><td>NA, MTurk</td><td>50%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 33.7,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.0</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Collective Future Framework</li><li>Desirability</li><li>Participative Efficacy</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td></td><td>Study 2</td><td>Experimental</td><td>288</td><td>NA, MTurk</td><td>45.8%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 35.1,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 10.4</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Hamann et al. (2021)</td><td>Cohort</td><td>317 (Pre-questionnaire)<br>193 (Post-questionnaire)</td><td>Germany, Students</td><td>61.8%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 23.4,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 3.3<br>(Pre-questionnaire)<br>57.5%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 23.3,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 3.0<br>(Post-questionnaire)</td><td>Ecology</td><td><ul><li>Having a vision</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Intervention: coaching weekend on sustainability initiatives (including envisioning on-campus sustainability)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Judge and Wilson (2015)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>506</td><td>Aotearoa New Zealand, students</td><td>69%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 19.2,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 2.4</td><td>Plant-based, Vegetarian, Vegan</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Plant-based: imagining a society in 2050 where most individuals consume a plant-based diet</li><li>Vegetarian: imagining a society in 2050 where most individuals consume a vegetarian diet</li><li>Vegan: imagining a society in 2050 where most individuals consume a vegan diet</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th rowspan="2">Author(s), Year, Study number</th><th colspan="4">Study characteristics</th><th colspan="4">Collective Positive Prospection characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Study design</th><th>N</th><th>Country, sampling population</th><th>Women (%), Age (M, SD)</th><th>Theme</th><th>Individual Differences</th><th>Induction</th><th>Content Characteristic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>24</td><td>Law et al. (2023)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>784</td><td>US, Prolific</td><td>48%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 39.7,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 13.3</td><td>Ecology,<br>Ideal</td><td>• ECA<br>• Utopian<br>Thinking</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Milfont et al. (2014)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>162 (Sample 1)<br>180 (Sample 2)</td><td>Brazil,<br>University students and general population</td><td>68.5%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 25.4,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 6.7 (Sample 1)<br>72.2%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 34.5,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.3 (Sample 2)</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td>• Collective<br>Future<br>Framework</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Pittaway et al. (2024)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>967 (Sample 1)<br>953 (Sample 2)</td><td>Australia</td><td>51%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 45.0,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 20.4 (Sample 1)<br>53%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 49.7,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 17.6 (Sample 2)</td><td>Ecology</td><td>• ECA</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Syropoulos et al., (2024)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>771</td><td>US, Prolific</td><td>47.9%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 40.5,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 13.5</td><td>Ecology</td><td>• ECA</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Troy et al. (2024)</td><td>Experimental</td><td>382</td><td>US, MTurk</td><td>50.3%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 42.8,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 12.3</td><td>Ecology</td><td>• ECA</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Wenzel et al. (2024)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>301</td><td>Australia,<br>Qualtrics</td><td>59.5%,<br>M<sub>age</sub> = 44.7,<br>SD<sub>age</sub> = 18.3</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td>• Positive: text reading and image presentation of what planet could look like in 2040 with people coming together to enact changes<br>• Cautionary: text reading and image presentation of what planet could look like in 2040 without people coming together to enact changes<br>• Cautionary + Positive: text reading and image presentation of what planet could look like in 2040 with or without people coming together to enact changes<br>• Control: no task<br>• Imagination near future: imagining a positive world in 2 years due to climate progress<br>• Imagination distant future: imagining a positive world in year 2050 due to climate progress</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
(continued)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th rowspan="2">Author(s), Year, Study number</th><th colspan="4">Study characteristics</th><th colspan="4">Collective Positive Prospection characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Study design</th><th>N</th><th>Country, sampling population</th><th>Women (%), Age (M, SD)</th><th>Theme</th><th>Individual Differences</th><th>Induction</th><th>Content Characteristic</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>30</td><td>Study 2</td><td>Experimental</td><td>489</td><td>Australia, Qualtrics</td><td>55 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 34.7, SD<sub>age</sub> = 10.0</td><td>Economic equality</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Control: no task</li><li>Imagination near future: imagining a positive future in 2 years resulting from progress in improving economic equality in Australia</li><li>Imagination distant future: imagining a positive future in year 2050 resulting from progress in improving economic equality in Australia</li><li>Control: no task</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Wright et al. (2020)</td><td>Study 1</td><td>Correlational</td><td>US, Mechanical Turk</td><td>43.3 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 36.5, SD<sub>age</sub> = 11.3</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td><ul><li>ECA</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td></td><td>Study 2</td><td>Correlational</td><td>US, Mechanical Turk</td><td>45.5 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 36.7, SD<sub>age</sub> = 12.4</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td><ul><li>ECA</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Wright et al. (2022)</td><td>Correlational</td><td>1029</td><td>Canada, Qualtrics</td><td>47.1 %, M<sub>age</sub> = 47.1, SD<sub>age</sub> = 17.1</td><td>Ecology</td><td></td><td><ul><li>ECA</li></ul></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

References

References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the scoping review.

* Badaan, V., Akil, C., Zebian, Y., & Jost, J. T. (2022). Envisioning change: An empirical test of the social psychological model of utopian thinking and collective action. *Journal of Social Psychology Research*, 77–96.

Badaan, V., Jost, J. T., Fernando, J., & Kashima, Y. (2020). Imagining better societies: A social psychological framework for the study of utopian thinking and collective action. *Social and Personality Psychology Compass*, 14(4), Article e12525.

* Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., & Jeffries, C. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. *Nature Climate Change*, 2(8), 600–603.

* Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., Kashima, Y., & Crimston, C. R. (2013). Collective futures: How projections about the future of society are related to actions and attitudes supporting social change. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 39 (4), 523–539.

* Bain, P. G., Milfont, T. L., Kashima, Y., Bilewicz, M., Doron, G., Garðarsdóttir, R. B., ... Saviolidis, N. M. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. *Nature Climate Change*, 6(2), 154–157.

Bamberg, S., Rees, J. H., & Schulte, M. (2018). Environmental protection through societal change: What psychology knows about collective climate action—and what it needs to find out. In *Psychology and climate change* (pp. 185–213). Academic Press.

* Basso, F., & Krpan, D. (2022). Measuring the transformative utopian impulse for planetary health in the age of the anthropocene: A multi-study scale development and validation. *The Lancet Planetary Health*, 6(3), e230–e242.

Blondé, J., & Girandola, F. (2016). Revealing the elusive effects of vividness: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences assessing the effect of vividness on persuasion. *Social Influence*, 11(2), 111–129.

* Bosone, L., Thiriot, S., Chevrier, M., Rocci, A., & Zenasni, F. (2024). Visioning sustainable futures: Exposure to positive visions increases individual and collective intention to act for a decarbonated world. *Global Environmental Psychology*, 2, 1–28.

Braga, J. N., Ferreira, M. B., & Sherman, S. J. (2015). The effects of construal level on heuristic reasoning: The case of representativeness and availability. *Decision*, 2(3), 216.

Bury, S. M., Wenzel, M., & Woodyatt, L. (2020). Against the odds: Hope as an antecedent of support for climate change action. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 59(2), 289–310.

Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 14(1), 88–96.

* Chevrier, M., Delhomme, P., Zenasni, F., & Bosone, L. (2024). Integrating utopian constructs: A preliminary investigation of their similarities and predictive power on social change intentions. *Sustainability*, 16(19), 8320.

Cohen-Chen, S., & Van Zomeren, M. (2018). Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, 77, 50–59.

* Daysh, S., Thomas, E. F., Lizzio-Wilson, M., Bird, L., & Wenzel, M. (2024). “The future will be green, or not at all”: How positive (utopian) and negative (dystopian) thoughts about the future shape collective climate action. *Global Environmental Psychology*, 2, 1–28.

Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, 12(2), 168–192.

* Fernando, J. W., Burden, N., Ferguson, A., O'Brien, L. V., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2018). Functions of utopia: How utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 44(5), 779–792.

* Fernando, J. W., O'Brien, L. V., Burden, N. J., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2020). Greens or space invaders: Prominent utopian themes and effects on social change motivation. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, 50(2), 278–291.

Fieulaine, N., & Apostolidis, T. (2014). Precariousness as a time horizon: How poverty and social insecurity shape individuals' time perspectives. *Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo*, 213–228.

Fine, J. C. (2024). Refining relational climate conversations to promote collective action. *Npj Climate Action*, 3(1), 10.

Fritsche, I. (2024). It's getting dark, but we will see: Gaining collective momentum in face of existential environmental threat. *Global Environmental Psychology*, 2, 1–16.

Fujita, K., & Carnevale, J. J. (2012). Transcending temptation through abstraction: The role of construal level in self-control. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 21 (4), 248–252.
Fujita, K., & Han, H. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. *Psychological Science, 20*(7), 799-804.

Geiger, N., Dwyer, T., & Swim, J. K. (2023). Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement. *Frontiers in Psychology, 14*, Article 1139427.

Glaveanu, V. P. (2018). Perspectival collective futures: Creativity and imagination in society. *Imagining collective futures: Perspectives from social, cultural and political psychology*, 83-105.

* Hamann, K. R., Holz, J. R., & Reese, G. (2021). Coaching for a sustainability transition: Empowering student-led sustainability initiatives by developing skills, group identification, and efficacy beliefs. *Frontiers in Psychology, 12*, Article 623972.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. *Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14*(5), 260-265.

* Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2015). Vegetarian Utopias: Visions of dietary patterns in future societies and support for social change. *Futures, 71*, 57-69.

Kantenbacher, J., Miniard, D., Geiger, N., Yoder, L., & Attari, S. Z. (2022). Young adults face the future of the United States: Perceptions of its promise, perils, and possibilities. *Futures, 139*, Article 102951.

Kay, A. C., Jimenez, M. C., & Jost, J. T. (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28*(9), 1300-1312.

Keller, E., Marsh, J. E., Richardson, B. H., & Ball, L. J. (2022). A systematic review of the psychological distance of climate change: Towards the development of an evidence-based construct. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81*, Article 101822.

* Law, K. F., Syropoulos, S., & Young, L. (2023). Why do longtermists care about protecting the environment? An investigation on the underlying mechanisms of pro-climate policy support. *Sustainability, 15*(24), Article 16732.

Lebreton, M., Bertoux, M., Boutet, C., Lehericcy, S., Dubois, B., Fossati, P., & Pessiglione, M. (2013). A critical role for the hippocampus in the valuation of imagined outcomes. *PLoS Biology, 11*(10), Article e1001684.

Levitas, R. (1990). *The concept of utopia*. London, UK: Philip Allan.

Mastroianni, A., & Ludwin-Peery, E. (2022). Things could be better. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2uxwk.

* Milfont, T. L., Bain, P. G., Souza, R. V., Gouveia, V. V., & Kashima, Y. (2014). Examining how projections about the future of society are related to present-day climate change action. *Psico, 45*(3), 359-368.

Milfont, T. L., & Gouveia, V. V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26*(1), 72-82.

Miloyan, B., & McFarlane, K. A. (2019). The measurement of episodic foresight: A systematic review of assessment instruments. *Cortex, 117*, 351-370.

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. *BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18*, 1-7.

Oettingen, G. (2012). Future thought and behaviour change. *European Review of Social Psychology, 23*(1), 1-63.

Ojala, M. (2023). Hope and climate-change engagement from a psychological perspective. *Current Opinion in Psychology, 49*, Article 101514.

Olson, M. (1968). *The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. *Systematic reviews, 5*, 1-10.

Peetz, J., Wilson, A. E., & Strahan, E. J. (2009). So far away: The role of subjective temporal distance to future goals in motivation and behavior. *Social Cognition, 27*(4), 475-495.

* Pittaway, C. R., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2024). Pathways to conventional and radical climate action: The role of temporal orientation, environmental cognitive alternatives, and eco-anxiety. *Global Environmental Change, 87*, Article 102886.

Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115*(45), 11401-11405.

Roese, N. J., & Epstude, K. (2017). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking: New evidence, new challenges, new insights. In *Advances in experimental social psychology* (Vol. 56, pp. 1-79). Academic Press.

Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51*(1), 26.

Shrikanth, S., Szpunar, P. M., & Szpunar, K. K. (2018). Staying positive in a dystopian future: A novel dissociation between personal and collective cognition. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147*(8), 1200.

Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., & Ledgerwood, A. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. *Psychological Bulletin, 141*(3), 525.

Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. *Psychological Science, 28*(11), 1663-1674.

* Syropoulos, S., Law, K. F., Mah, A., & Young, L. (2024). Intergenerational concern relates to constructive coping and emotional reactions to climate change via increased legacy concerns and environmental cognitive alternatives. *BMC psychology, 12*(1), 182.

Szpunar, K. K., Spreng, R. N., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111*(52), 18414-18421.

Szpunar, P. M., & Szpunar, K. K. (2016). Collective future thought: Concept, function, and implications for collective memory studies. *Memory Studies, 9*(4), 376-389.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), *The social psychology of intergroup relations* (pp. 7-24). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Thiriot, S. (2022). Transition écologique: quels projets de société? Les scénarios Transition (s) 2050 de l'ADEME au prisme des réactions citoyennes. *Futuribles, (6)*, 53-69.

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. *Annals of Internal Medicine, 169*(7), 467-473.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. *Psychological Review, 117*(2), 440.

* Troy, C. L., Norman, M., Kim, N., Skurka, C., & Myrick, J. G. (2024). Can you picture it? Effects of positive and negative depictions of climate futures on climate action intentions. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 96*, Article 102312.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. *Science, 185*(4157), 1124-1131.

United Nations. (2015). Global sustainable development report 2015: Advance unedited version. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1758GSDR%202015%20Advance%20Unedited%20Version.pdf.

Van Valkengoed, A. M., Steg, L., & Perlaviciute, G. (2023). The psychological distance of climate change is overestimated. *One Earth, 6*(4), 362-391.

Van Zomeren, M. (2021). Toward an integrative perspective on distinct positive emotions for political action: Analyzing, comparing, evaluating, and synthesizing three theoretical perspectives. *Political Psychology, 42*, 173-194.

Van Zomeren, M., Pauls, I. L., & Cohen-Chen, S. (2019). Is hope good for motivating collective action in the context of climate change? Differentiating hope's emotion- and problem-focused coping functions. *Global Environmental Change, 58*, Article 101915.

Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. *Psychological Bulletin, 134*(4), 504.

* Wenzel, M., Love, J., & Thomas, E. F. (2024). Imagining a positive future: Desirability and possibility as possible pathways to hope and commitment to collective action. *Imagination, Cognition and Personality*, Article 02762366241268146.

* Wright, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., & Mackay, C. M. (2022). Access to environmental cognitive alternatives predicts pro-environmental activist behavior. *Environment and Behavior, 54*(3), 712-742.

* Wright, J. D., Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M., & Neufeld, S. D. (2020). Imagining a sustainable world: Measuring cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72*, Article 101523.