# No time like the future? Towards a generative, prospective and possibilities-focussed ‘futures social psychology’

Annayah M B Prosser, Lucia Bosone, Julian W Fernando, Gavin Brent Sullivan

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

## To cite this version:

Annayah M B Prosser, Lucia Bosone, Julian W Fernando, Gavin Brent Sullivan. No time like the future? Towards a generative, prospective and possibilities-focussed ‘futures social psychology’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2025, 64 (4), 10.1111/bjso.70007. hal-05442467

HAL Id: hal-05442467

https://hal.science/hal-05442467v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2026

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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# No time like the future? Towards a generative, prospective and possibilities-focussed
'futures social psychology'

Annayah M.B. Prosser, Lucia Bosone, Julian W. Fernando, Gavin Brent Sullivan

## Abstract

Anticipating, considering and incorporating possible futures is a central component of human social life. Our social actions, beliefs, values and interactions are all oriented towards, or away from, various future outcomes. Yet despite this, social psychology is yet to harness its unique contribution to our understanding of the future, not addressing the challenges that many other disciplines are confronting in this emerging discipline. In this editorial, we introduce our special issue on 'futures social psychology', and in doing so, we provide a starting point for scholars interested in furthering research in this area. We outline previous important discipline-specific and methodological contributions, connecting social psychological perspectives to the wider academic and practitioner landscape. We outline how our eleven special issue contributions advance discussion, theorising and research methodology on topics such as sustainability, collective group continuity, prefigurative politics, AI sentience, and degrowth policies. Finally, we encourage social psychologists of all topic and methodological persuasions to adopt a generative, prospective, and possibilities-focussed approach to their work, to ensure that social psychology as a discipline can effectively meet the challenges of the future and maximise its impact.
**Contribution Statement**

This special issue topic arose from a 2022 small-group meeting and 2023 EASP preconference on the social psychology of the future. AMBP originally proposed the special issue to BJSP, and led the organisation and administration of the Special Issue. AMBP, GBS and LB co-organised the EASP preconference where this special issue was conceived. All editors AMBP, LB, JF and GBS played an equal role in selecting contributions, editing papers and the proposal, and co-authoring this editorial. Editor names are presented in alphabetical order to reflect equal contribution after AMBP.

**Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank the BJSP editors, Shelley McKeown Jones and Sammyh Khan for their warm reception to our special issue proposal, and their guidance throughout the process. Additionally, the BJSP editorial team have been an invaluable help throughout the editorial process, in particular- Hannah Wakley was instrumental in publishing this issue. We would also like to thank the members of the Futures Social Psychology community, for inspiring this special issue and generating so many fascinating contributions. We thank the EASP 2023 committee for approving our pre-conference on the ‘Social Psychology of the Future’, which was a vital opportunity to form this collection of work. We thank all our contributors and stellar team of reviewers for their patience, and for forming this excellent suite of contributions to this growing field. A special issue can only fit so many papers, and we are delighted to see this work originally submitted to this issue continue to be published elsewhere. Finally, thank you to Professor Michael Schmitt- who organised the first meeting on futures psychology in 2022, and has been an invaluable contributor to building this research community ever since.
Introduction

Every second of every day, we move from the present into the future. Understanding and orienting towards the future is a vital aspect of many areas of society, including (but not limited to): social change efforts, political action, international development, intergroup relations, climate action, pro-social behaviour and almost anything else that we can imagine, anticipate or forecast. As researchers, advocates and people who exist in the world, the impact of our research, our words and our actions sit squarely within the domain of the as-yet-uncertain future. We grapple with this ever-present, yet never quite graspable future through a variety of psychological and social means: visioning, imagining, predicting, storytelling, prospecting, mapping, hypothesising. Such actions provide the basis for our thoughts, feelings and interactions in the present, allowing us to create desired futures and avoid undesirable collective outcomes. Thus, almost everything that we do as people is with the future in mind.

Our research is also dominated by visions of the future and new analytical vocabularies. Snow (1964) remarked that “scientists have the future in our bones”. Philosophers have developed new futures conceptualizations, advancing analysis of existential threats (e.g., so-called "Black Swan" events) and post-humanism in our anthropocene epoch (Bostrom, 2009). Other scholars argue that the primary function of science is to reject unwelcome futures (e.g. Edgerton, 2011). Many disciplines of scholarship and study have already recognised the vital importance of embracing, rejecting or understanding futures in their work. The discipline of ‘futures studies’ or ‘futurology’ is- ironically- approaching half a century old (Cornish, 1977; Paura, 2024), and a so-called ‘revolution’ towards future thinking in research was claimed to occur in 1981 (Cornish, 1981). The development of the interdisciplinary domain of ‘futures studies’ was founded within the social sciences following World War Two “as a systematic discipline incorporating prognosis, projection, linear programming, planning, and target setting for the future” (Kristóf & Nováky, 2023).
In recent decades- perhaps due to the development of futures studies- consideration of
the future has also accelerated in many social scientific fields, such as organisation studies
(Flyverbom & Garsten, 2021); management (Wright et al., 2013); leadership (Millett, 2006);
sociology (Tutton, 2017), consumer research (Davies et al., 2020; Holman, 1981); geography
(Morgan, 2015); science and technology studies (Miller, 2023); disaster studies (Ferguson,
2021), and politics (Maze, 2019). For example, sociologists have long been exploring the
performative constructions of the future by politicians and elites (Oomen et al., 2022). In
industry too, many technologies are explicitly oriented towards a not-quite-present future (e.g.
forecasting tools, generative AI, road design) (Varanka, 2024), with many innovations (e.g.,
Web 4.0 and virtual reality) slated to have unpredictable, potentially transformative impacts.

This orientation towards the future is also becoming mainstream outside of the social
sciences. The future has long been a domain of (science) fiction (Seeger & Davison-Vecchione,
2023), and speculative and dystopian fiction are quickly increasing in popularity across the
globe (Qutait & Blalack, 2022). Museum curators are increasingly centring exhibitions and
events on visions of the future, compared to the past (such as 'The Futurium' - Zipf &
Babourkova, 2024). Business has developed 'future-proofing' as a key priority in many
organisational strategies (Anand, 2024), and forms a key component of risk assessment
(Arenas-Falótico & Scudiero, 2023). While this research has been ongoing for decades,
evidently, in recent years there has been an acceleration of work exploring dimensions of the
future across a variety of disciplines. Futuring as a practical methodology for research (Monda,
2018), public engagement (Barendregt et al., 2024), design (Hyysalo et al., 2014) and pedagogy
(Hoffman et al., 2021) has also developed rapidly.

Given this acceleration of interest, we might reasonably expect that social psychology
also has a lot to say about the future. However, social psychology has lacked thorough
interrogation of, and integration of futures literature from other disciplines. In 1982, Kenneth
Gergen commented that most behavioural science has a “curious insensitivity to the historical context” (Gergen, 1982). Still, over forty years later, much research being conducted within social psychology is heavily reliant on present contributions, conditions, technologies and contexts that urgently need adaptation and innovation to meet the challenges of the future. Despite some progress, social psychology has historically been and remains stubbornly resistant to interdisciplinary contributions and discussions occurring outside of traditional experimental paradigms (Sewell, 1989; Sinha, 2019). Other scholars note that: “Over-reliance on experimentation in a vacuum is like using a camera to take a snapshot of human life that is in motion” (Power et al., 2023). While psychology has been characterised as “the science of the status quo” (Moghaddam, 1990) for its lack of future and generative orientation, new “world-making” (Power et al, 2023) alternative approaches focusing on collective futures imagination and creativity in social, cultural and political psychology (de Saint-Laurent, et al., 2018) are gaining traction.

Orienting towards the future in research requires significant creativity in our scholarship and practice. We argue that social psychology *can, will, and should* systematically and scientifically address futures-focused research and exploration of possibilities. A systematic approach includes examining historical examples of futures-focused thought, feeling, behaviour, action and interactions at individual and group levels (Bowler, 2017; Rosenberg & Harding, 2005). We believe that social psychologists can take a leading role in anticipating and planning to address solutions to global challenges (e.g. Sullivan, 2017). We can incorporate findings such as the United Nations (2020) “The World We Want” survey of 50,000 participants in 50 countries about the future, or attempt to reverse engineer the social steps needed to produce appropriate future-focussed leadership. Critically, this can include engaging individuals and groups who may be said to resist the future, attached or focusing instead on the past (e.g., reactionary politics; Sullivan, 2021) and ‘retrotopias’ (Bauman,
2017). In doing so, we can co-create forms of collective action that can achieve desired
change towards more equitable, sustainable and socially just futures.

However, our ability to do this within the domains of our discipline needs further
interrogation. What can social psychology offer to understandings of the future in individual
and group contexts? How can our theories inform real-world impact to meet the grand
challenges the future will bring? Answering these questions is vital if social psychology is to
establish its own future, and realise its potential as a force for positive change within society.

In an aim to accelerate development of research around this crucial topic within our
discipline, we present in this special issue a selection of papers at the forefront of what we
term ‘futures social psychology’. A crucial consideration in the selection of papers for this
special issue is the extent to which the relevant theory and research questions focus explicitly
on futures and attempt to improve “futures literacy” (Miller, 2018) in the discipline and in
society. While much social psychological research is implicitly futures-focused because it
aims to contribute to change, produce knowledge, influence others, highlight societal and
scientific trends and patterns, this special issue showcases work with an explicit future
orientation. As such, the special issue contains research on topics such as future-focused
thinking about society (e.g. utopianism), the ability to imagine and project into future
societies, responses to global grand challenges (e.g., climate change), and responses to
contemporary technological innovations (e.g., artificial intelligence).

This editorial aims to set these new special issue contributions within their
overarching contexts. We began by outlining the background of futures studies within the
social sciences, connecting social psychology to this literature. We are aware that futures
studies is a complex, interdisciplinary space that can be intimidating to newcomers. So, to
stimulate further work in this area, in the remainder of the editorial we aim to signpost recent
and potentially influential directions in futures thinking that stand to shape and direct further
developments in futures social psychology. We begin by reviewing what our special issue
reveals about the future thoughts, feelings, actions and interactions of individuals and
collectives. Next, we highlight new measures and methodological innovations social
psychologists should consider in relation to the study of futures and possibilities. The third
section considers how social psychology researchers and participants can work together to
create sustainable or desirable futures for diverse groups. We conclude by summarising the
main themes of the special issue papers and outline further opportunities for social
psychologists to engage in futures focussed work.

Creating the Future: Towards a Future-forming and world-making social psychology

One way in which social psychology can orient itself towards futures is by engaging
seriously with critiques of social psychology’s typical relationships to methodology, culture
and diversity, and as a participant in social change. Increasingly, scholars are encouraging
social psychologists to participate in the important work of individuals, activists, and groups
in working together to build the future. this important work. In their seminal contribution,
Power et al (2023) defines world-making as “the fact that humans at both an individual and
collective level contribute to the making of societies, social relations, and cognition” (p.379).
They position their encouragement within two unfolding ‘crises’ in social psychology: the
replication crisis (the finding that many quantitative findings in social psychology do not
replicate) and the WEIRD crisis (an over-emphasis on Western, Educated, Industrialised,
Rich and Democratic societies in psychological samples). Instead of encouraging a move
towards further ‘quantification’, aiming for ‘objectivity’ and ‘generalisability’, they call for
more in-depth social psychological approach, that is “contextually engaged, historically
situated, methodologically plural, and culturally embedded” (Power et al., 2023, p. 379).
Similarly, Gergen argues that social psychology should engage in this “active building of
viable futures” (p. 81) and “nourish theoretical perspectives that invite forms of life of
particular promise for future wellbeing” (p. 83) (Gergen, 2023). Indeed, where social
psychology has previously been characterised as ‘history’ (D. Sullivan, 2020), we should now
move towards seeing “social psychology as future” (Power et al., 2023). This focus mirrors
calls from the ‘impact agenda’ within the social sciences, which encourages research that is
explicitly oriented towards creating positive impact in the world (Smith & Stewart, 2017).
This approach mirrors calls from other scholars to ensure that the introduction of open
research practices do not foreclose the opportunity for important qualitative contributions in
social psychology (Prosser et al., 2023). For this reason, it was important to us as editors that
the special issue featured contributions from a variety of methodologies, both qualitative,
quantitative and mixed methods. We now showcase some of the contributions that speak to
this theme.

The world-making framework reinforces vital calls for perspectives outside of
Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic societies (WEIRD) to be fully
included in psychological research, to allow a variety of different perspectives on contentious
global issues, such as climate adaptation and reparations (Ghai et al., 2025). This is an
important perspective exemplified in the article by Dennis et al. (2025), which uses focus
groups to draw our focus to political futures in Nigeria, and the role of young people in
determining future political pathways (Dennis et al., 2025). In one of the most populous
countries on the African continent, they explore the pressures and goals of young people
existing in a tumultuous political system and examine their hopes for the future. The findings
present key distinctions between an elite-fuelled narrative of despair, and a citizen-fuelled
narrative of hope, and highlight a contribution often lost within the mainstream of WEIRD
social psychology. The paper demonstrates how fundamental youth inclusion is for ensuring
positive political futures, and speaks to the frustration young people internationally feel when they are excluded from change-making processes.

Within this world-making framework, explicit consideration should be also given to whether the ethical components of change are empowering and just (Power et al., 2023). The approach is central to the anticipation of sentient Artificial Intelligence (AI) outlined by Pauketat et al.’s (2025) contribution to this special issue. While it may not be clear that humans are, in general, being “pulled forward” to living with forms of artificial life that appear to be conscious and feeling, this appears to be an instance in which we need to “conceptualize how new goals, institutions, and practical technologies that we cannot yet imagine will come into existence” (p. 3). Pauketat et al.’s contribution demonstrates that far from being in the realm of science fiction, many people are already willing to consider some forms of AI as sentient. World-making researchers could create future-forming “looping effects” (Hacking, 1996) by anticipating that AI welfare considerations and AI rights advocacy will be needed reflecting new forms of rights and specifically because it “would be important to reduce the percentage of unhappy sentient AI systems” (p. 26). The prescience of this work also demonstrates a core issue within futures social psychology- that of the academic publishing system itself. When we first invited this contribution, AI was not widespread within society, and in the two years while this work was being reviewed and published, large-language models such as ChatGPT have taken the world by storm. What appeared to be a somewhat eccentric project upon first conception, has already become reality throughout the timing of the peer review and publication process.

There are real possibilities here that some ‘loops’ will arc further away from future possibilities while others will move closer to specific futures along a dimension of continuity to discontinuity. Radical action may be a good example of possibilities that seem unlikely now but which might somehow even result in us becoming other to ourselves (Sullivan &
Wijayanti, 2024). Such heterogeneity and transformation in people's perception of the future can be influenced by group dynamics that bring individuals to perceive specific threats and issues differently depending on the groups they belong to and share their social identities with. For example, in this special issue Uysal et al (2025), used a variety of methods to demonstrate correlational and causal links between activist identity, risk perception and climate action. Further, Syropoulos et al (2025) show how feelings of responsibility for future generations are endorsed widely and predict pro-environmental behaviour. Their findings suggest that these considerations of intergenerational responsibility can form the basis for narratives about climate action that can be endorsed across the political spectrum.

## Envisioning how societies could be

Alongside these macro world-making perspectives, social psychology also has important contributions for the study of futures at the micro-individual level. A prominent theme of several contributions to this special issue is how perceptions of the what the future will be like affect attitudes and behaviour. Prior work in social psychology has investigated the content of future imaginings, how this may change depending on context, and how these imaginings stimulate behaviour change in the present. For example, Kashima et al.'s (2009) work on folk theories of social change showed a general tendency across several countries to expect a pattern of rising agency and declining communion over time (see also Klackl et al., 2023). Subsequent work has identified a variety of folk theories or worldviews about social change and shown that these differ in prevalence between countries and are associated with policy support. For example, Bain et al. (2023) examined endorsement of five worldviews about change – Progress, Golden Age, Endless Cycle, Maintenance and Balance – and showed that these were associated with various outcomes including support for sustainability, reactions to innovations, and political preferences. Overall, this body of research suggests that
people have broad worldviews or narratives about social change over time that contribute their decisions to support changes to their society.

The way individuals perceive the future of their own group, as being in continuity or not with its past and present, also influence the way they behave towards social groups to which they do not belong. The work of Ionescu et al (2025) published in this special issue examines people's perceptions of the trajectory of French society, and shows that perceptions of social deterioration are associated with support for actions to defend the present society. Their results indicated that feelings of anomie (i.e., disintegration and dysregulation of society) were associated with projections of deterioration of society in the future and collective angst, which in turn predicted intentions or support for actions to defend the present society (e.g., anti-immigration actions). Similarly, Arnold et al. (2025) (reviewed at greater length below) explore how understandings of the future influence perception of racism and inequality among Black and white Americans.

People also appear to envision broader narratives regarding the impact of specific social changes that can guide their support or opposition to those changes. The Collective Future Framework (CFF) posits that people's beliefs about societal consequences of envisioned futures motivate actions to achieve or avoid these outcomes (Bain et al., 2013a). For instance, Bain et al. (2013b) asked participants to imagine future scenarios in which a particular social change had been implemented (e.g., climate change has been mitigated, marijuana has been legalized), and to rate those possible future societies in terms of societal dysfunction, societal development, people's character, and people's values. They found that people's intentions to take action to foster the imagined future were related to their projection of benevolence—warmth and morality - in those imagined future societies. Related research has shown similar effects, for example, Judge & Wilson (2015) showed that future imagined vegetarian or vegan futures elicited more support for social change to the extent that they
were perceived as reducing societal dysfunction and increasing warmth. This is in line with the work by Shaffer-Morrison et al. (2025), included in this issue, which demonstrated how future perspective with regards to the rising of sea levels influences farmers' support for adaptation behaviours. These findings highlight the role of collective future thinking in attitudes toward contemporary efforts for social change.

These findings highlight the role of collective aspirations in driving behavioural change, and emphasize the psychological importance of imagining more equitable and sustainable societies. As an example, in the field of environmental sustainability, the ability to imagine environmentally sustainable cognitive alternatives to the (unsustainable) status quo is associated with pro-environmental behavioural change (see Wright et al., 2020; 2022; Bosone et al., 2024; Lutz et al., 2025; Chevrier et al., 2025). The article by Bleh et al. (2025), featured in this issue, explores how the ability to imagine socio-ecological alternatives (cognitive alternatives) motivates collective action through collective efficacy beliefs and identification with social movements. They demonstrated, through two longitudinal studies, that participating in specific interventions (a climate camp for Study 1 and an online conference on socio-ecological visions for Study 2) boosts environmental cognitive alternatives, positively predicting changes in collective efficacy beliefs and movement identification, which in turn mediated increased collective action intentions. These findings highlight the critical role of environmental cognitive alternatives in fostering a sense of shared agency and identification with collective efforts, thereby bridging the gap between imagination and activism. This underscores the importance of fostering the mental accessibility of positive societal visions to enhance motivation for transformative social and environmental change. In a complementary contribution included in this issue, Lalot et al. (2025) demonstrate across two pre-registered studies that futures consciousness — an individual's capacity to anticipate, understand, and prepare for the future — predicts pro-environmental engagement across
behavioural and value domains, further illustrating how future-oriented cognitive capacities
can mobilize individuals toward collective ecological action.

How far into the future is worthy of meaningful consideration is a critical question
also. For example, Avery et al. (2025) reviewed changes over the last 30 years leading to calls
for radical change, and used items that focus on 30 years in the future (Avery et al., 2025).
With a self-conscious awareness of their work as future-forming, Avery et al. highlight how
degrowth-oriented climate change mitigation policies should address forms of future loss and
threat across gendered groups. In contrast, the timeline and limit to imagination of racism in
the study of Arnold et al. (2025) varies between a 20-year period up to 60 years in the past
(up to 1960) or 60 years in the future (2080 to 2100). Their findings suggest that future
perceptions of social issues align with current social identities and that experiences of the past
and future are not only asymmetrical, but also seek to maintain collective self-esteem with
less racism and inequality expected in the future by White Americans than Black Americans.
If the theoretical extension of Temporal comparison theory (Strahan et al., 2006) focusing on
the future self to potential collective is sound, imaginations of the future may feel as
threatening for one's group in the future as much as in the present, leading to greater attempts
to imagine a better but unrealistic future. Simić et al. (2025), in this issue, provide similar
evidence that people who identify more with their nation will be more open towards outgroup
members in the present if their ingroup will not change significantly in the future (Simić et
al., 2025).

## Envisioning how societies *should* be

A further development in futures thinking relevant to social psychologists is the
examination of what people believe their society *should* be, that is, utopian thinking or
utopianism. While there is certainly evidence of related concepts being addressed in social
psychology previously – for example, Boschetti et al.’s (2016) myths of the future and
Hornsey et al’s (2018) work on ideal ways of being – specific theory and research about
utopias in social psychology is a relatively recent phenomenon. This work begins from the
notion of collective self-regulation (Jonas et al., 2010) and posits that in the same way that
individuals regulate their actions and psychological processes to approach desirable outcomes
and avoid undesirable ones, they may also regulate their behaviour in this way regarding
collective outcomes. Within this broader conception of collective self-regulation, we have
desirable goals for societies or collectives, otherwise known as utopias (see Kashima &
Fernando, 2020). This work has sought to understand whether people think about ideal states
for their societies, what the content of those imaginings is, and how such thought might be
implicated in motivation for action with the intention of moving closer to those ideals.

Fernando et al. (2018) investigated the extent to which individuals engage in thought
about an ideal society, and whether utopian thinking is associated with motivation to change
one’s existing society. Guiding their analysis were three so-called functions of utopia derived
from previous theorising about utopias (Levitas, 1990): change, criticism and compensation.
That is, utopian thinking can potentially motivate 1) motivation to change one’s existing
society, 2) criticism of one’s existing society and/or 3) escapist thought which compensates
for the deficiencies of the existing reality. Their analysis showed that utopianism (the
tendency to engage in utopian thinking) was associated with all three functions, but that
experimentally manipulated utopian thinking elicited greater change motivation and decreased
satisfaction with existing society, but not greater escapism.

Following on from this work, researchers have attempted to better understand the
motivational effects of utopian thinking. For example, Badaan et al. (2022) showed that hope
mediated the effect of imagining a utopian society on collective action intentions. Other
research has adopted a more issue-specific approach to utopianism, examining the effects of
imagining a utopia in which specific societal issues have been resolved. Given the contemporary salience of climate change, it is unsurprising that this has typically been the issue in question (see Fernando et al., 2023 on the presence of ecological themes in the contemporary utopian visions). Bird et al. (2024) showed that utopian thinking reduced climate-related exhaustion. Similarly, Daysh et al., (2024) demonstrated that climate-related utopian thinking did not directly affect collective action intentions, but did indirectly influence action intentions via increased hope and decreased fear. Wenzel et al. (2024) have also demonstrated the capacity for imagining positive futures related to climate change and economic equality to promote hope. These studies in particular highlight the potential emotional effects of utopian thinking, but several questions remain regarding the motivational consequences of utopian thinking in the context of specific societal challenges. The work of Geiger et al. (2025) published in this special issue addresses these questions by examining how hope can translate into climate engagement. They demonstrate that receiving emotional and instrumental social support fosters action-oriented hope, which in turn promotes civic action on climate change - offering important insight into the motivational pathways through which positive future-oriented emotions may support engagement with pressing societal challenges.

Another line of research has attempted to understand the content of utopian visions, and how this might affect their motivational capacity. Fernando et al. (2020) presented participants with either a Green utopia (emphasising ecological modernization and sustainability) or a Sci-Fi utopia (emphasising material abundance and technological development). They found that to the extent that participants positively evaluated the Green utopia, they showed greater social change and pro-environmental motivation, and were more likely to donate to an environmental charity. There were no such effects for the Sci-Fi utopia, even among those who positively evaluated that utopian vision. This research also showed
that Green utopia was rated as embodying more interpersonal warmth and positive emotions, as well as social progress. This finding is consistent with the aforementioned research by Bain et al., (2013) and Judge & Wilson, (2015) who found support for social change to be associated with future benevolence, and warmth/reduced societal dysfunction, respectively. These studies again underscore the role of narratives of social change that may drive social change motivation, and are echoed by the work of Lizzio-Wilson et al. (2025) published in this special issue, which analysed the contents of people's self-generated utopias and how these influence their intention to change the status quo.

The work by Finnerty et al. (2025), published in this issue, also analyses the contents of the future, as constructed by scientists, demonstrating that depending on the focus of such a future on either collapse or transformation, the urgency and type of actions proposed by groups change. Returning to Fernando et al.'s (2020) comparison of the Green and Sci-Fi utopias, they reasoned that the Sci-Fi utopia may not be especially motivating as it does not diverge substantially from the so-called business as usual pathway (i.e., what is likely to occur if society stays on its current path). The business-as-usual pathway is an important concept in the development of theorising about utopianism, and draws on the work described above regarding worldviews of societal change, which examines the beliefs people have about how cultures change over time and what societies will be like in the future. These business-as-usual pathways describe what society is likely to be like if we continue on the current trajectory, and can be contrasted with utopian visions of a better society (or dystopian visions of a worse society) (see Kashima & Fernando, 2020). However, these perspectives remain to be integrated beyond theoretical speculation.

A further consideration within the social psychology of societies should be, is that futures envisaged by one group may be highly undesirable to others. In this respect, it is important to go beyond any simple binary in which such groups are optimistic or pessimistic
about the future by engaging with the grounds and reasons for such orientations. Indeed, how futures are (co)constructed through events and spectacle is also worthy of interrogation.

Obradović et al. (2025) use an in-depth rapid response ethnographic approach to interrogate how this may occur in real-time, through an historic event in national history- the death of a monarch (Obradović et al., 2025).

This issue is particularly important because prefigurative politics shows that many people are prepared to act in ways that are consistent now with the kinds of individual and collective behaviour that they want to manifest later (Clarke & Drury, 2025). This can render simplifications about groups problematic. For example, individuals may be attracted towards groups that want to enact exclusionary and reactionary (i.e., past-restoring) political stances, but the ressentiment that they feel can be tempered, managed and redirected by the concern, care and social bonds that members of their new in-group provides. Prefigurative spaces where the future is imagined in the present may also be restorative sites for activists working towards various forms of social change across the political spectrum (Prosser et al., 2025).

We can also consider the intersection of utopian-type thinking, with the role of social psychologists in positive forms of world-making; the challenge may be one in which our own future visions need to be curtailed, rethought or even abandoned. For this reason, it is important to attempt to engage with the perspectives and actions of people who resist or deny approaches that we believe are required to achieve global futures that are fair, sustainable and progressive. This is not to reinforce stances that are reactionary or retrogressive but potentially deeply divisive and controversial, but rather to be clear about what forms of personal and social change, support and even material redistribution or radical degrowth approaches might be required for such individuals and groups to consider adopting or supporting our future orientations.
Methodological Developments and Future Possibilities

An important role of our introduction to the special issue is to review briefly the methodological challenges of focusing empirical research on events that have not yet taken place and consider whether bolder steps are required. Many of the studies reported here use existing quantitative and qualitative methods to highlight ways in which futures are considered and oriented towards in the present. But as we highlight below, there is a trend towards mixed-method research, qualitative methods are developing techniques to create extended and rich engagement with possible future possibilities (e.g., akin to developments in the development of solution-focused questioning to discuss alternative to problems in the present by imagining futures in which those issues are resolved). If social psychology is to meet the challenge of studying future with rigour and care, then advances across all research methodologies must be devised. While our authors use methods that are in many respects traditional to social psychology, new technologies not only change the ways that we collect data but often require also new forms of analysis. We would be remiss if we avoided completely at least highlighting developments which could become major trends in the future.

Developments in self-report measures have been a source of recent innovation along with experimental procedures to evoke futures in ways that meaningfully relate to current self-reported and actual individual and collective behaviour. Lalot et al.'s (2025) use of the recently created Future Consciousness scale (Ahvenharju, Minkkinen, & Lalot, 2018) which seems to be a better predictor (in the statistical but perhaps also in the longitudinal futures sense) of pro-environmental behaviour. Bleh et al. (2025) use surveys to highlight that how futures are realized via collective action in groups is more important than a sense of collective rather than individual efficacy (cf. Uysal et al.'s quantitative studies comparing the roles of current political and future existential risks on climate activism). Similarly, Schaffer-Morrison et al. (2025) use traditional correlational and vignette experiment methods to develop a more
nuanced account of the way that the future time perspectives of farmers and availability of socioeconomic resources combine to encourage implementation of adaptation practices.

Ionescu et al. (2025), for example, use measures of collective futures thinking to examine how perceptions in the present (e.g., of anomie) affect projections and imaginings of the French nation. The addition of group-based emotional features such as scales which measure future-focused emotions such as group-based or collective angst about future negative possibilities for one's group highlight concerns about responding in the present to anticipated and imagined changes. Arnold et al. (2025) similarly explore possibilities for change but in contrast to Ionescu et al. they provide a specific future year of 2100 to focus the imaginings of participants. By comparing how people have different experiences of evoked features of their group (such as racism and inequality) in the past (i.e., past collective continuity since 1960) compared to the respective “equidistant” and “even more distant” futures of 2080 and 2100, this experimental framework allows them to demonstrate that those futures are more relevant to the present social self. Simić et al.’s study focusing only on future collective continuity from the present to 50 years into the future, suggests that such beliefs that one’s group will stay despite the plausibility of change occurring in that period translate into an openness to outgroups in the present.

Such new measures not only provide the basis for more refined theoretical models than those currently available, but also, they can suggest bases and foci for possible experimental manipulations (Lalot et al., 2025) and real-world collaborative interventions. Building possible futures firstly in conversation-based imaginings with others has been a central feature of qualitative research “forecasting” for some time. For instance, Zaumseil et al. (2013) used questions around possibilities which explored a future absence of problems (somehow solved magically where the details or likelihood are not important) to shift conversations about post-earthquake problems and highlight how intertwined resilience is
with a focus on the specific future of participants' villages. The example raises the question of continuities and differences in orientations the future over time such as the extent to which futures are relational. Syropoulos et al.'s (2025) series of survey studies is a traditional method which highlights the novel finding that those most resistant to addressing climate change may be most effective if they try to encourage a sense of responsibility to future generations (cf. the dystopian and ambivalent future thinkers of Lizzio-Wilson's (2025) typology discussed below).

What can be called traditional social psychology methods can be adapted to study futures and possibilities related topics. For example, Paketat et al. (2025) use a survey approach with a science-fiction like topic as they analyse people's imaginings and forecasts about a future world in which AI sentience is widespread. Such approaches do not need people to believe in or be convinced that these possibilities will be fully realized (i.e., that they will actually come to pass) but expectations in general may influence and loop-back not just on the present but also possible futures (e.g., activities such as agitating for particular forms of change). This is evident culturally in narratives that often blend science fiction with genres of thrillers or horror to provide warnings about the unknown impacts of new technologies. These create concern about future technologies and mean that social psychologists can contribute to the development of appropriate policies about AI risk levels and related forms of governance. Avery et al. (2025), for example, used a now widely accepted mixed method approach combining thematic analysis of semi-structured interview and a quantitative survey to highlight gendered responses to radical pro-environment degrowth-oriented policies.

The use of new technologies of interpretation and their challenges in futures social psychology is evident in Lizzio-Wilson et al. (2025) computerized linguistic analyses of stories of futures where an issue participants support (e.g., climate change) was resolved.
There are several examples in our special issue of approaches using what can be called
traditional qualitative methods engaged with futures topics in ways that highlight how the
methodological overreach of computerized methods. We imagine that Finnerty et al. (2025)
might resist the use of large language model approaches to identify themes might be used to
replace discourse analyses of the ways in which constructions of the future shape how
scientists discuss which actions are seen as necessary and realistic as well as viable or
sustainable in addressing the climate crisis. Obradović et al.'s (2025) research demonstrates a
small but important practical methodological innovation of a rapid response ethnography (and
a supportive ethics committee) to explore situations that realize a future possibility in the
present. The possibility of responding quickly to large scale national or international events
that may have been anticipated in the near or distant future, especially when framed with the
concept of liminality, can help to show how significant, historical changes and the future
political implications are made sense of. It seems unlikely that this type of researchers-
immersed-in-practice approach could be completely replaced by large language and other
computational analysis methods. Many of the studies presented here are therefore consistent
with the call of Glaveanu and de Saint Laurent (2025) for research on "just recently" as well
as "not yet" realized future possibilities to employ "flexible, participatory methods capable of
tracing how horizons of possibility expand, contract and evolve across different contexts" (p.
1).

Conclusion

Studying how individuals and groups imagine, engage with, and construct futures is no
longer an abstract academic exercise—it is a psychological and societal imperative. In an era
defined by accelerating social, technological, and environmental change, understanding how
people orient to the future can illuminate both barriers to and catalysts for positive collective
action. Scholars across the social sciences have increasingly recognised the importance of futuring practices (e.g., Flyverbom & Garsten, 2021; Tutton, 2017), yet social psychology has only recently begun to conceptualise the future as an object of systematic inquiry (Gergen, 2023; Power et al., 2023). This Special Issue contributes to addressing that gap by showcasing a diverse array of theoretical, methodological, and empirical innovations that together help establish the contours of a “futures social psychology.”

Several articles in this Special Issue examine how imagining alternative futures influences social engagement. Geiger et al. (2025) demonstrate that social support fosters action-oriented hope, which in turn promotes civic climate engagement. Bleh et al. (2025) and Lalot et al. (2025) show how envisioning socio-ecological alternatives and cultivating futures consciousness can enhance pro-environmental commitment and collective efficacy. Complementing these, Lizzio-Wilson et al. (2025) explore the content and typologies of self-generated utopias, highlighting their motivational significance for challenging the status quo.

Other contributions investigate how future-oriented perceptions of risk or societal change influence present behaviour. Shaffer-Morrison et al. (2025) reveal how farmers’ future time perspectives and access to resources predict climate adaptation practices. Uysal et al. (2025) identify the interplay between future existential threats and present political risks in predicting climate activism. Ionescu et al. (2025) and Arnold et al. (2025) examine how anomie, collective angst, and racial identity shape imagined national futures, revealing their consequences for political and intergroup attitudes.

This special issue also centres non-WEIRD and global perspectives. Dennis et al. (2025) foreground Nigerian youths’ political hopes and frustrations, revealing tensions between elite- and citizen-driven future narratives. Obradović et al. (2025) apply a rapid-response ethnographic approach to capture how moments of national liminality—such as the death of a
monarch—enable future redefinition. Simić et al. (2025) highlight how beliefs about collective continuity into the future can foster openness toward outgroups in the present.

Emerging technological and scientific futures are critically explored as well. Pauketat et al. (2025) examine public reasoning about the rights and welfare of potentially sentient artificial intelligences. Finnerty et al. (2025) contrast scientific framings of climate futures as either collapse or transformation, showing how these frames shape imagined responses. Avery et al. (2025) integrate qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate gendered responses to radical climate policy proposals, revealing how anticipated loss and threat influence future engagement.

Taken together, the collection of works published in this special issue illustrates that the future is not only a psychological object, but also a socially and politically constructed terrain, ripe for empirical investigation. The articles demonstrate that people's thoughts, emotions, and behaviours are deeply shaped by their imagined futures, and that such imagined futures can be leveraged to support transformative action in the present.

Practically, this special issue positions social psychology as a vital contributor to interdisciplinary efforts to navigate complex futures. By unpacking how people imagine societal trajectories, how they emotionally engage with those visions, and how such engagement drives or inhibits action, the field can offer powerful insights for policy, education, and public communication. In doing so, a futures-oriented social psychology can help equip societies - and the discipline itself - to better respond to the urgent challenges and possibilities that lie ahead.
References

Anand, L. (2024). Future-Proofing Your Supply Chain: Lessons from Recent Disruptions (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5235336). Social Science Research Network.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5235336

Arenas-Falótico, A. J., & Scudiero, E. (2023). Futures contracts as a means of hedging market risks. *AiBi Revista de Investigación, Administración e Ingeniería, 11*(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.15649/2346030X.3185

Arnold, S. E., Omar, S. M., Cortesi, J., Toizer, B., & Adams, G. (2025). Past-future asymmetry in identity-relevant perception of racism and inequality. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 64*(2), e12872. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12872

Avery, R. A. T., Korichi, A., Vagli, C., Chkroun, H. J. E., Seefeld, F. R., Kaiser, I., Giaccari, K., Defauw, L., Brey, L., Glardon, N., Ajani, N., Sorgius, T., & Butera, F. (2025). A qualitative and quantitative study of radical pro-environmental social change as anticipated future loss and threat: A gender perspective. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 64*(1), e12841. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12841

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, 1*(1), 77-96.

Bain, P. G., Bongiorno, R., Tinson, K., Heanue, A., Gómez, Á., Guan, Y., Lebedeva, N., Kashima, E., González, R., Chen, S. X., Blumen, S., & Kashima, Y. (2023).
Worldviews about change: Their structure and their implications for understanding responses to sustainability, technology, and political change.
*Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 26*(4), 504-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12574

Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., Kashima, Y., & Crimston, C. R. (2013a).
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213478200

Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., Kashima, Y., & Crimston, C. R. (2013b). *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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213478200

Barendregt, L., Bendor, R., & van Eekelen, B. F. (2024). Public participation in futuring: A systematic literature review. *Futures, 158*, 103346.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103346

Bauman, Z. (2017). *Retrotopia*. Wiley.

Bird, L. H., Thomas, E. F., Wenzel, M., & Lizzio-Wilson, M. (2024). Thinking about the future: Examining the exacerbating and attenuating factors of despair-induced climate burnout. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98*, 102382.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102382

Bleh, J., Masson, T., Köhler, S., & Fritsche, I. (2025). From imagination to activism: Cognitive alternatives motivate commitment to activism through identification with social movements and collective efficacy. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 64*(1), e12811. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12811

Boschetti, F., Price, J., & Walker, I. (2016). Myths of the future and scenario archetypes.

*Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111*, 76–85.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.009

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.

https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11105
Bostrom, N. (2009). The Future of Humanity. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 1(2): 41-78.

Bowler, P. J. (2017). *A History of the Future: Prophets of Progress from H. G. Wells to Isaac Asimov*. Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, D., & Drury, J. (2025). Emergent Prefigurative Politics and Social Psychological Processes: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. *Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology*, 35(1), e70040. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.70040

Chevrier, M., Bosone, L., Zenasni, F., & Delhomme, P. (2025). Beyond the individual: testing and applying a collective protection motivation model for pro-environmental behaviors. *Current Psychology*, 44(6), 5156-5172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07517-4

Cornish, E. (1977). *The Study of the Future: An Introduction to the Art and Science of Understanding and Shaping Tomorrow's World*. The Society.

Cornish, E. S. (1981). The Futurist Revolution in Research. *National Forum: Phi Kappa Phi Journal*, 61(1), 6.

Davies, I., Oates, C. J., Tynan, C., Carrigan, M., Casey, K., Heath, T., Henninger, C. E., Lichrou, M., McDonagh, P., McDonald, S., McKechnie, S., McLeay, F., O'Malley, L., & Wells, V. (2020). Seeking sustainable futures in marketing and consumer research. *European Journal of Marketing*, 54(11), 2911-2939.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0144

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/gep.11153
Dennis, U. D., Fashola, T., Haruna, A. D., Omose, O.-I. J., & Moss, S. M. (2025). “I have been hearing we are the future of tomorrow for so long now. When is tomorrow?” narratives on youth and the future in Nigeria. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 64(2), e12881. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12881

Edgerton, D. (2011). In praise of Luddism. *Nature*, 471(7336), 27–29.
https://doi.org/10.1038/471027a

Ferguson, N. (2021). Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. Allen Lane.

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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217748604

Fernando, J. W., Burden, N., Judge, M., O’Brien, L. V., Ashman, H., Paladino, A., & Kashima, Y. (2023). Profiles of an ideal society: The utopian visions of ordinary people. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology*, 54(1), 43-60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221126419

Finnerty, S., Piazza, J., & Levine, M. (2025). Climate futures: Scientists' discourses on collapse versus transformation. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 64(1), e12840.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12840

Flyverbom, M., & Garsten, C. (2021). Anticipation and Organization: Seeing, knowing and governing futures. *Organization Theory*, 2(3), 26317877211020325.
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020325

Geiger, N., Swim, J. K., & Fraser, J. (2025). With a little help from my friends: Social support, hope and climate change engagement. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 64(1), e12837. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12837
Gergen, K. J. (2023). The social sciences as future forming. *Possibility Studies & Society*, 1(1–2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231157624

Ghai, S., Thériault, R., Forscher, P., Shoda, Y., Syed, M., Puthillam, A., Peng, H. C., Basnight-Brown, D., Majid, A., Azevedo, F., & Singh, L. (2025). A manifesto for a globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science. *Communications Psychology, 3*(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00179-1

Hoffman, J., Pelzer, Peter, Albert, Loes, Béneker, Tine, Hajer, Maarten, & and Mangnus, A. (2021). A futuring approach to teaching wicked problems. *Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45*(4), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1869923

Holman, R. H. (1981). The Imagination of the Future: A Hidden Concept in the Study of Consumer Decision Making. *Advances in Consumer Research, 8*(1), 187–191.

Hornsey, M. J., Bain, P. G., Harris, E. A., Lebedeva, N., Kashima, E. S., Guan, Y., González, R., Chen, S. X., & Blumen, S. (2018). How Much Is Enough in a Perfect World? *Cultural Variation in Ideal Levels of Happiness, Pleasure, Freedom, Health, Self-Esteem, Longevity, and Intelligence. Psychological Science*, 29(9), 1393–1404.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618768058

Hyysalo, S., Kohtala, Cindy, Helminen, Pia, Mäkinen, Samuli, Miettinen, Virve, & and Muurinen, L. (2014). Collaborative futuring with and by makers. *CoDesign, 10*(3–4), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.983937

Ionescu, O., Collange, J., & Tavani, J. L. (2025). Perceptions of the present shape imagined futures: Unravelling the interplay between perceived anomie, collective future thinking and collective action in the French context. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 64*(1), e12804. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12804
Jonas, K. J., Sassenberg, K., & Scheepers, D. (2010). Self-regulation within and between groups. *Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13*(2), 131–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209359982

Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2015). Vegetarian Utopias: Visions of dietary patterns in future societies and support for social change. *Futures, 71*, 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.005

Kashima, Y., Bain, P., Haslam, N., Peters, K., Laham, S., Whelan, J., Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Kaufmann, L., & Fernando, J. (2009). Folk theory of social change. *Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12*(4), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01288.x

Kashima, Y., & Fernando, J. (2020). Utopia and ideology in cultural dynamics. *Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34*, 102–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.002

Klackl, J., Ochoa, D. P., Du, H., Jonas, E., Kashima, E. S., Ah Gang, G. C., & Kashima, Y. (2023). A WEIRD theory? On the prevalence of western folk theory of social change in the West and Asia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(2), 249-268.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221104962

Kristóf, T., & Nováky, E. (2023). The Story of Futures Studies: An Interdisciplinary Field Rooted in Social Sciences. *Social Sciences, 12*(3), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12030192

Lalot, F., Ahvenharju, S., & Uusitalo, O. (2025). Green dreams are made of this: Futures consciousness and proenvironmental engagement. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 64*(1), e12799. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12799

Levitas, R. (1990). *The Concept of Utopia*. Syracuse University Press.
Lizzio-Wilson, M., Thomas, E. F., Wenzel, M., Haines, E., Stevens, J., Fighera, D., ... & Skitka, L. J. (2025). What could be? Depends on who you ask: Using latent profile analysis and natural language processing to identify the different types and content of utopian visions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(2), e12853.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12853

Lutz, A. E., Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M., & Wright, J. D. (2025). Experimentally elevating environmental cognitive alternatives: Effects on activist identification, willingness to act, and opposition to new fossil fuel projects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101, 102516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102516

Maze, R. (2019). Politics of Designing Visions of the Future. *JOURNAL OF Futures Studies: Epistemology, Methods, Applied and Alternative Futures*, 23(3), 23–38.
https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201903_23(3).0003

Miller, C. A. (2023). STS and the Design of Futures. In *Climate, Science and Society* (pp. 187–194). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003409748-30

Millett, S. M. (2006). Futuring and visioning: Complementary approaches to strategic decision making. *Strategy & Leadership*, 34(3), 43–50.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610660591

Monda, E. (2018). *Social futuring – In the context of futures studies*.
https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2018.40.s1.5

Morgan, J. (2015). Making geographical futures. *International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education*, 24(4), 294–306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1086133

Obradović, S., Martinez, N., Dhanda, N., Bode, S., Ntontis, E., Bowe, M., Reicher, S., Jurstakova, K., Kane, J., & Vestergren, S. (2025). Mourning and orienting to the future in a liminal occasion: (Re)defining British national identity after Queen
Elizabeth II's death. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 64(1), e12807.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12807

Oomen, J., Hoffman, J., & Hajer, M. A. (2022). Techniques of futuring: On how imagined futures become socially performative. *European Journal of Social Theory*, 25(2), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020988826

Paura, R. (2024). *Chapter 2: About the history of Futures Studies*. https://www-elgaronline-com.ezproxy1.bath.ac.uk/edcollchap/book/9781035301607/book-part-9781035301607-8.xml

Power, S. A., Zittoun, T., Akkerman, S., Wagoner, B., Cabra, M., Cornish, F., Hawlina, H., Heasman, B., Mahendran, K., Psaltis, C., Rajala, A., Veale, A., & Gillespie, A. (2023). Social Psychology of and for World-Making. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, 27(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221145756

Prosser, A. M. B., Hamshaw, R. J. T., Meyer, J., Bagnall, R., Blackwood, L., Huysamen, M., Jordan, A., Vasileiou, K., & Walter, Z. (2023). When open data closes the door: A critical examination of the past, present and the potential future for open data guidelines in journals. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 62(4), 1635–1653. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12576

Prosser, A. M. B., O'Neill, S., Whitmarsh, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Kurz, T., & Blackwood, L. (2025). Overcoming (vegan) burnout: Mass gatherings can provide respite and rekindle shared identity and social action efforts in moralized minority groups. *Political Psychology*, 46(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13009

Qutait, T., & Blalack, J. (2022). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Speculative Fiction Beyond the West. *Comparative Critical Studies*, 19(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.3366/ccs.2022.0449

Rosenberg, D., & Harding, S. (2005). *Histories of the Future*. Duke University Press.
Seeger, S., & Davison-Vecchione, D. (2023). Daniel Bell, Social Forecasting, and Science Fiction. *Extrapolation*, 64(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.3828/extr.2023.11

Sewell, W. H. (1989). Some Reflections on the Golden Age of Interdisciplinary Social Psychology. *Annual Review of Sociology*, 15(Volume 15, 1989), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.000245

Shaffer-Morrison, C. D., Dillman-Hasso, N. H., & Wilson, R. S. (2025). Sowing seeds for the future: Future time perspective and climate adaptation among farmers. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 64(2), e12850. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12850

Simić, A., Sacchi, S., & Perugini, M. (2025). Our ways will not change: Future collective continuity increases present prosocial considerations. *British Journal of Social Psychology*, 64(1), e12847. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12847

Sinha, C. (2019). What if Discipline Is Not Interdisciplinary? The Case of Social Psychology in India. *Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science*, 53(3), 504–524.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-9473-y

Smith, K. E., & Stewart, E. (2017). We Need to Talk about Impact: Why Social Policy Academics need to Engage with the UK’s Research Impact Agenda. *Journal of Social Policy*, 46(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000283

Strahan, E. J., Wilson, A. E., Cressman, K. E., & Buote, V. M. (2006). Comparing to perfection: How cultural norms for appearance affect social comparisons and self-image. *Body Image*, 3(3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.07.004

Sullivan, G. B. (2017). The future of psychology, theoretical psychology and global society: Beyond prediction in imagining humanity's challenges. In G. B. Sullivan, J. Cresswell, B. Ellis, M. Morgan, & E. Schraube (Eds.), *Resistance and Renewal in Theoretical Psychology* (pp. 265-276). Concord, Ontario: Captus Press.
Sullivan, D. (2020). Social psychological theory as history: Outlining the critical-historical approach to theory. *Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24*(1), 78–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319883174

Sullivan, G. (2021). Political Reactionism as Affective Practice: UKIP Supporters and Non-Voters in Pre-Brexit England. *Politics and Governance, 9*(3), 260-273.

Sullivan, G. B., & Wijayanti, A. P. (2024). Limits of self and Other xenophilic responsiveness: Including complex emotions, power differences and possible futures. *Possibility Studies & Society, 2*(2), 220–226.
https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241265284

Tutton, R. (2017). Wicked futures: Meaning, matter and the sociology of the future. *The Sociological Review, 65*(3), 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12443

Uysal, M. S., Martinez, N., & Vestergren, S. (2025). The horror of today and the terror of tomorrow: The role of future existential risks and present-day political risks in climate activism. *British Journal of Social Psychology, 64*(1), e12821.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12821

Varanka, J. (2024). *Future-proofed professionals of design: Integrating futures studies with design practice*. https://lauda.ulapland.fi/handle/10024/66220

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, 44(1), 5-37.

https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366241268146

Wright, C., Nyberg, D., De Cock, C., & Whiteman, G. (2013). Future imaginings: Organizing in response to climate change. *Organization, 20*(5), 647–658.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413489821
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, 101523.

http://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/smdyp

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165211065008

Zipf, G., & Babourkova, R. (2024). Designing the Exhibition at Futurium: Translating futures thinking into an exhibition context. In *Cultivating Futures Thinking in Museums*. Routledge.