Hope and Anxiety: A Meta‐analytic Review

ABSTRACT

As the prevalence of anxiety disorders increases, there is rising interest in factors that protect against and alleviate anxiety. One such factor is hope, or the positive expectancy of utilizing pathways and agency to accomplish one′s goals. The present study is a Meta‐analytic review of literature examining associations between hope and anxiety in its various forms. The primary aim was to determine if greater hope was associated with lower anxiety cross‐sectionally, longitudinally, and across diagnostic boundaries. A comprehensive literature review identified 129 studies with 155 unique effect sizes (ES) that met eligibility criteria, 102 (108 unique ES) of which examined the cross‐sectional relationship between hope and trait anxiety (n = 31,514). The weighted, standardized mean ESr (−0.36, 95% CI [−0.38, −0.32]) reflected a moderate inverse relationship, while the longitudinal ES (k = 11) was slightly weaker (r = −0.27, 95% CI [−0.38, −0.17]. Mean ESs for the relationships between hope and disorder‐specific anxiety were comparable in strength; the largest effect was seen between hope and social anxiety disorder. Moderator analysis indicated that the cross‐sectional relationship between hope and trait anxiety was not impacted by sample type, but not by gender or age group. This systematic review demonstrates that hope is prospectively and cross‐sectionally associated with lower levels of trait‐level anxiety. In addition to being a robust predictor of lower trait anxiety, hope is associated with less disorder‐specific anxiety. These findings indicate that hope is an impactful source of resilience that could be targeted in interventions for anxiety.

1. Introduction

As of 2019, over 301 million people worldwide are estimated to have an anxiety disorder (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ²⁰²¹). Anxiety disorders are among the most common types of mental health disorders and cost the global economy 1 trillion US dollars per year (The Lancet Global Health ²⁰²⁰). Research has examined biological, psychosocial, and transdiagnostic vulnerability factors that contribute to anxiety disorders, including genetic heritability, early experiences, and experiential avoidance (Barlow 2000; Hayes et al. ¹⁹⁹⁶). A considerable amount of research has found that biological or social factors such as physical activity and social support may protect against the development of anxiety disorders; however, less is known about psychological resources that may protect against and reduce the severity of anxiety disorders (Zimmermann et al. 2020). To better understand how anxiety symptoms can be reduced or prevented, it is important to examine factors that factors linked to its underlying vulnerability. One such resource is hope, which has a strong theoretical connection to anxiety.

1.1. Hope

In contemporary psychology, Snyder′s hope theory conceptualizes hope as a cognitive motivational resource comprised of two reciprocal components, both of which are associated with positive expectancies about personal goals and one′s ability to achieve them (Snyder et al. 1991). Pathways thinking reflects the degree of certainty an individual has about their ability to identify strategies for advancing towards their goals. Ideally, an individual will hold the belief that they are able to adjust those pathways in response to obstacles. The second component of hope—agency—involves one′s resolve and motivation to achieve their goals. Individuals with high levels of hope utilize both agency and pathways frequently and efficiently to reach an expected outcome. While hope impacts one′s affect, current theories, including the Snyder hope model, define hope as a cognitive trait (Snyder 2002). When engaging in pathways thinking, individuals rely on their understanding of how past actions influenced outcomes to discern which pathways will most likely lead towards their goal. When utilizing agentic thinking, individuals identify their role in the chain of events leading to the desired outcome (Snyder 2000). This then leads to estimating the personal significance of the outcome, the continuous process of agency and pathways thinking, and finally, engagement in goal‐oriented behavior.

1.2. Hope Is Distinct From Other Positive Psychology Constructs

Positive psychology is broadly defined as the study of human strengths, values, and characteristics that contribute to optimal functioning (Linley et al. 2006). Hope is related to, yet distinct from, other positive psychology constructs such as self‐efficacy and optimism (Rand 2018). The agency component of hope consists of beliefs that are similar to self‐efficacy, or the perceived ability to influence outcomes through one′s actions (Bandura 1977). Hope is similar to optimism in that both involve positive expectations about the future (Carver et al. 2010). Compared to self‐efficacy and optimism, hope involves motivation and identification of how to reach favorable outcomes (Rand 2018). Thus, while hope shares similarities with other forms of positive expectancies, it has distinct components of its own. Studies examining hope and optimism concurrently found that not only are they best modeled as distinct latent constructs, but they are uniquely linked to components of well‐being, depression, and anxiety (Gallagher and Lopez 2009; Yang et al. ²⁰¹⁴). Hope′s associations with other positive psychology constructs may reflect its contribution to resilience.

1.3. Hope Is an Adaptive Source of Resilience

While there are multiple definitions of resilience, they typically refer to one′s ability to return to or remain at baseline functioning after an adverse event (Vella and Pai 2019). It is theorized that when encountering an obstacle, high hope individuals return to their original level of agency at a quicker rate compared to their lower hope counterparts (Snyder 2002). This ability to rebound is characteristic of resilience and can partially explain hope′s relationship with both positive and negative mental health outcomes. In the context of anxiety, which is related to perceptions of threat and diminished perceived control, hope′s emphasis on agency and pathways thinking may counteract these vulnerabilities, helping explain their inverse association. The cognitive process of hope may also elicit more adaptive coping strategies, which may help reduce symptoms of mental illness (Gallagher et al. 2020). Hope may enhance the ability to return to baseline functioning after experiencing stress because they are more likely to form a plan of recovery and be confident in their ability to implement it (Ong et al. 2018).

One way hope might promote resilience is by enhancing positive functioning. Hope is associated with emotional, psychological, and social well‐being (Lee and Gallagher 2017), and shows moderate‐to‐strong associations with multiple favorable outcomes, including greater positive affect (Alarcon et al. 2013). Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that hope predicts higher levels of positive affect and life satisfaction over time (Ciarrochi et al. 2015; Valle et al. ²⁰⁰⁶). Meta‐analytic reviews of prior literature also indicate that hope is strongly related to lower levels of depression and PTSD (Alarcon et al. 2013; Gallagher et al. ²⁰²⁰). In addition, a plethora of research has found both cross‐sectional and longitudinal associations between hope and anxiety (e.g., Arnau ²⁰¹⁷).

1.4. Hope and Anxiety

Anxiety occurs when a person anticipates a negative outcome when faced with potential uncertainty. Psychologists differentiate anxiety in its state form from its trait form. Trait anxiety is defined as the predisposition to experience anxiety as a response to stimuli, while state anxiety is the emotion that accompanies physiological arousal and feelings of apprehension (Endler and Kocovski 2001). While anxiety disorders are generally characterized by excessive fear and worry, the source may differ depending on the specific syndrome (American Psychiatric Association ²⁰²²). Environmental and genetic factors such as life stress and a family history of anxiety can influence the development of trait anxiety. However, psychological risk factors are also implicated in the onset of anxiety disorders. One such factor is low perceived control, or the expectation of control over the aspects of situations (Barlow 2000). The appraisal of a potential threat as uncontrollable may then activate physiological symptoms typically associated with fear and anxiety (Chorpita and Barlow 1998). This connection is consistent with the future‐oriented conceptualization of generalized anxiety, or “anxious apprehension” (Barlow 2000). According to Barlow, anxious apprehension occurs when an individual believes that the potential outcomes of a perceived negative event are uncontrollable or unpredictable (2000). Then, changes in cognitive and physiological arousal are activated, further signifying inadequacy and promoting a need to eliminate the emotion through either problem‐solving or avoidance coping behaviors (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). In the context of goal pursuit, anxiety results from the expectation that one will fail to achieve their goals. This expectation is antithetical to hope, which consists of positive expectations for future goal attainment, and is associated with greater perceived control (Arnau 2017; Gallagher and Lopez ²⁰¹⁷). Thus, hopeful individuals who believe they can respond to obstacles and utilize pathways towards their goals will have lower expectations for failure compared to less hopeful individuals.

Based on Barlow′s conceptualization of anxiety and fear, hope would likely have a robust impact on trait‐level anxiety even in the context of fear (2000). This is mainly because fear is a type of emotional response triggered by an acute perceived threat. As hope is goal‐oriented, having more positive expectations about pursuing a desired future outcome may not be helpful during a panic‐like experience (Arnau 2017). Hope is associated with different types of anxiety, including symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, specific phobias, and social anxiety (Aghababaei et al. 2016; Constantino et al. ²⁰¹⁷; Geraghty et al. ²⁰¹⁰). Longitudinal studies have observed that hope prospectively predicts lower trait anxiety, demonstrating a temporal effect of hope on anxiety (Ai et al. 2007; Besser and Zeigler‐Hill ²⁰¹⁴; Poteat et al. ²⁰²⁰).

In addition to demonstrating the associations between hope and anxiety, some research has also analyzed potential moderators of this relationship. One of these moderators is gender. Past studies show that the relationship between anxiety and hope may be greater in magnitude in men compared to women (Lloyd and Hastings 2009; Wells ²⁰⁰⁵). This could be explained by a study (Chang 2003) that demonstrated men engaged more consistently in both agentic and pathways, whereas women engaged mainly in agentic thinking. It has been suggested that the socialization of women to fewer alternative life choices (e.g. career), could reduce their likelihood to use pathways thinking when faced with a problem (Chang 2003; Wells ²⁰⁰⁵). Past research has also examined the relationship between hope and anxiety among samples with varying characteristics. In one study examining hope and anxiety among Israeli survivors of terrorist attacks and their spouses, a strong association was found between hope and anxiety (r = −0.66) in the survivor group, while a moderate effect size (r = −0.39) was observed among their spouses (Weinberg et al. 2016). Although prior research has explored the relationship between hope and anxiety in young and middle‐aged adults, less is known about whether this relationship is different for children compared to adults (Wells 2005). One study found that anxiety was more strongly associated with hope in adults compared to youths aged 12‐18; however the youth sample experienced higher levels of trauma than the adult sample, which may have influenced the results (Abram 2022). Much of the existing literature on hope and anxiety in children has focused on populations with trauma exposure or chronic illness, both of which can elevate anxiety levels and potentially alter how hope and anxiety are associated (Abram 2022; DiPierro et al. ²⁰¹⁸; Mednick ²⁰⁰⁵). The current analysis aims to clarify whether developmental stage modifies the association between hope and anxiety across multiple samples of children. In sum, findings from extant research suggest a moderate association between hope and anxiety, however, a comprehensive meta‐analysis with a moderator analysis to estimate how this relationship is impacted by gender, characteristics of the sample, and age group has yet to be conducted.

1.5. The Present Study

The primary aim of the present study was to systematically review the associations between hope and both trait and disorder‐specific anxiety. We focused on research using assessments based on Snyder′s operational definition given that this model of hope is the most widely studied and well validated model of hope to ensure consistency in measurement, enable more direct comparability, and minimizing heterogeneity due to conceptual differences (Gallagher et al. 2020; Snyder ²⁰⁰²) (Gallagher et al. 2019). While there are current systematic reviews that demonstrate associations between hope and other outcomes such as PTSD and optimism (Alarcon et al. 2013; Gallagher et al. ²⁰²⁰), there are no prior systematic reviews of the association between hope and anxiety. Furthermore, examining the longitudinal relationship between hope and trait‐level anxiety adds to the extant literature examining hope as a predictor of lower levels of anxiety symptoms. In addition to trait‐levels of anxiety, we also chose to examine cross‐sectional associations between hope and symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), situation‐specific anxiety (e.g. death anxiety), obsessive‐compulsive disorder (OCD), and panic disorder to explore whether strengths of associations varied depending on the specific disorder. Initial aims included examining longitudinal associations between hope and disorder‐specific anxiety. However, due to lack of studies we chose to only conduct longitudinal analysis for trait‐level anxiety.

Our secondary aim was to quantify the effects of possible moderators of the cross‐sectional relationship between hope and trait anxiety. The moderators included in this analysis were: sex (mostly female vs. mostly male); age group (adult vs. child); and the specific population that was sampled (community members, students, individuals with medical conditions, and mental health treatment‐seeking individuals). Based on effect sizes from past meta‐analyses and theoretical reviews, we hypothesized that the relationship between hope and trait‐level anxiety would be slightly greater in magnitude for men, individuals with medical conditions, and adults.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Search

The literature search began with a comprehensive literature review (See Figure 1). Through March 2024, a total of 4240 unique possible sources were identified from several databases (e.g. PsychInfo, PubMed, and Proquest Dissertations and Thesis). Permutations of the words hope, agency, pathways, and Snyder were included in database searches with permutations of the words anxiety, panic, agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, and phobia. An initial screen of abstracts and titles was conducted to eliminate duplicates and nonempirical research or publications (e.g. book chapters, literature reviews) to increase the efficiency of subsequent, more detailed review.

Figure 1.

PRISMA Meta‐Analysis Flow Diagram.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) the study included a measure of hope based on Snyder′s theory of hope (e.g. Adult Hope Scale, Adult Dispositional Scale, Children′s Hope Scale; (Snyder 2000); (b) the study included a validated measure of trait anxiety, anxiety disorder symptomology, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), or situation‐specific anxiety (e.g. State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al. 1983); Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7 (Spitzer et al. 2006)); (c) the article was written in English or had an English translation; (d) the article included an effect size or sufficient information to calculate an effect size between hope and at least one of the targeted forms of anxiety; and (e) the article consisted of original data that did not overlap with other published research to be included in the present systematic review. Figure 1 depicts the individual steps of the meta‐analytic process, as well as reasons for exclusion or inclusion, following PRISMA guidelines. Using this criteria, 130 articles were eligible for the meta‐analysis out of 1,022 full‐text articles initially identified.

2.3. Coding Procedure

Studies were coded by the first author using a coding form. We entered the following information into a coding form: (a) citation, (b) publication type (e.g., journal article, dissertation), (c) sample characteristics (e.g., total N, mean age, sex, race/ethnicity, child vs. adult, type of sampling), (d) name of hope measure, (e) type of anxiety measure, and (f) effect size value or information to calculate the effect size. Approximately 20% of articles were chosen for a reliability check and an additional coder carried out independent coding. Initial rate of agreement was 92% and all coding discrepancies were resolved via discussion.

2.4. Converting and Calculating Effect Sizes

To standardize the effect sizes for the relationships between hope and different types of anxiety, Pearson correlations, r, were used in the analyses (Field 2013). For longitudinal studies, we obtained the effect size between hope at the first time point and anxiety at the latest secondary timepoint. All meta‐analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 29.0 (2023) using the Hedges et al. random effects method, which involves converting raw correlations into Fisher′s z. The main effect size is then converted back into Pearson′s r (Hedges 2006; Hedges and Vevea ¹⁹⁹⁸). The heterogeneity of effect sizes was calculated using the Q statistic. A statistically significant Q statistic is indicative of variance in the observed effect sizes due to characteristics of the individual studies included in the meta‐analysis (Hedges 1992).

We examined study characteristics as potential moderators: (a) sex (greater than 50% female vs. greater than 50% male), (b) age group (adult vs. child), and (c) characteristics of the sample (community, student, individuals with physical illness, and mental health treatment‐seeking individuals). In this moderator analysis, sex was treated dichotomously as consistent with standard meta‐analytic practice when primary studies report sex in binary terms and only provide study‐level proportions (Borenstein et al. 2009; Lipsey and Wilson ²⁰⁰¹). We retained this approach for consistency with the existing literature and to facilitate comparison with previous findings. For each moderator analysis, the magnitude of the weighted mean effect size for each group, its 95% confidence interval, and between‐group heterogeneity (Q) were assessed for significance through examination of the magnitude of the ${\chi }^2$ statistic and the p‐value.

Finally, publication bias for each type of anxiety was estimated by calculating a fail‐safe n, which estimates the number of publications necessary to nullify the present effect size (Rosenthal 1979). The likelihood is that the true mean effect size is equal to zero increases as the fail‐safe n approaches zero.

3. Results

3.1. Hope and Trait Anxiety

A supplementary table presents a summary of the characteristics of the 129 studies included in all analyses. Table 1 presents 108 effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals for the 102 studies examining the cross‐sectional association between hope and trait anxiety (given that some studies included multiple usable effect sizes). Associations (r) between hope and trait anxiety ranged between −0.80 and −0.08. The weighted mean effect size for the random effects analysis with a combined sample size of 31,514 was −0.36 (95% CI [−0.38, −0.32]). This is indicative of a moderate inverse relationship between hope and trait anxiety, such that individuals higher in hope report lower levels of anxiety. The fail‐safe n with an $\text{α}$ of 0.01 for this effect was 3,946, suggesting that this finding is not likely to be due to publication bias. The Q statistic was statistically significant ${\text{χ}}^2(107)$= 863.14, p < 0.001, demonstrating that there was a high amount of heterogeneity among the 108 effect sizes.

Table 1.

Cross‐sectional Trait Anxiety Effect Sizes.

Citation	Hope scale type	Anxiety scale	N	ES (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Abdel‐Khalek and Snyder (2007)	Trait Hope Scale*	Kuwait University Anxiety Scale*	323	−0.29	−0.39	−0.19
Abram (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	HAM‐A	374	−0.34	−0.43	−0.25
Ai et al. (2005)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	457	−0.34	−0.42	−0.26
Anderson and Feldman (2020)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐A	102	−0.41	−0.56	−0.23
Anderson (2016)	State Hope Scale	HADS‐A	60	−0.40	−0.59	−0.16
Arnau (2002)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	529	−0.24	−0.32	−0.16
Asgari and Ricciardelli (2013)	Trait Hope Scale	MASQ ‐AA	178	−0.18	−0.32	−0.03
Aydin and Odaci (2021)	Trait Hope Scale*	STAI Trait*	570	−0.43	−0.50	−0.36
Bailey (2002)	State Hope Scale	STAI State	377	−0.52	−0.59	−0.44
Bailey (2002)	State Hope Scale	STAI State	112	−0.28	−0.44	−0.10
Bailey et al. (2008)	State Hope Scale	State Anxiety Scale	108	−0.53	−0.65	−0.38
Barlow (2002)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	282	−0.50	−0.58	−0.41
Billington et al. (2008)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	103	−0.37	−0.53	−0.19
Cabral (2010)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	143	−0.23	−0.38	−0.07
Carretta et al. (2014)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	23	−0.51	−0.76	−0.12
Carver et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	MASQ‐AA	95	−0.13	−0.32	0.07
Chang et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale*	BAI*	502	−0.32	−0.40	−0.24
Chang et al. (2019)	Trait Hope Scale	BAI	249	−0.19	−0.30	−0.06
Chang et al. (2017)	Trait Hope Scale	BAI	223	−0.35	−0.46	−0.23
Chang et al. (2016)	Trait Hope Scale	BAI	575	−0.32	−0.39	−0.25
Cheavens et al. (2006)	State Hope Scale	STAI‐Form Y	39	−0.64	−0.80	−0.41
Chen et al. (2020)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	943	−0.17	−0.23	−0.10
Cheung et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	345	−0.37	−0.46	−0.28
Chow (2010)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	422	−0.51	−0.58	−0.44
Cole et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	413	−0.25	−0.34	−0.16
Davidson (2012)	Trait Hope Scale	ZSRA	60	−0.45	−0.63	−0.22
DiPierro et al. (2018)	Children′s Hope Scale	DSM IV Affective Scale of Youth Self‐Report ‐ Anxiety	134	−0.36	−0.50	−0.20
D'Souza et al. (2023)	Trait Hope Scale	OASIS	388	−0.28	−0.37	−0.19
Egger (2017)	Trait Hope Scale, Children Hope Scale	Hopkins Symptoms Checklist‐25	12	−0.25	−0.72	0.38
Elvin et al. (2021)	Children′s Hope Scale	RCADS‐Anxiety Subscale	93	−0.62	−0.73	−0.48
Favale et al. (2023)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	69	−0.19	−0.41	0.05
Feldman (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	222	−0.15	−0.28	−0.02
Feldman and Snyder (2005)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	139	−0.67	−0.75	−0.57
Finch et al. (2020)	Children′s Hope Scale	RCADS ‐ Anxiety Subscale	456	−0.36	−0.44	−0.28
Fischer et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	84	−0.32	−0.50	−0.11
Fung et al. (2011)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	6	−0.10	−0.84	0.77
Gallagher et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	HAM‐A	223	−0.24	−0.36	−0.11
Gana et al. (2013)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	310	−0.25	−0.35	−0.14
Gaynor (2004)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI	80	−0.57	−0.70	−0.40
Gupta and Gupta (2014)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	160	−0.39	−0.51	−0.25
Gupta and Gupta (2014)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	160	−0.51	−0.62	−0.39
Harris et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	42	−0.26	−0.52	0.05
Harris et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	46	−0.29	−0.54	0.00
Ho et al. (2010)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	71	−0.18	−0.40	0.06
Holloway et al. (2017)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	278	−0.38	−0.48	−0.27
Ivcevic et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	309	−0.08	−0.19	0.032
Ivcevic et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	343	−0.38	−0.46	−0.28
Jovanovic and Brdaric (2012)	Children′s Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	408	−0.22	−0.31	−0.13
Karababa (2020)	Children′s Hope Scale*	STAI Trait*	639	−0.59	−0.64	−0.54
Keller et al. (2011)	Trait Hope Scale*	STAI*	1245	−0.51	−0.55	−0.47
Kennedy et al. (2009)	State Hope Scale	HADS‐A	54	−0.27	−0.50	−0.002
Kern et al. (2015)	Children′s Hope Scale	Well‐Being Questionnaire‐Anxiety Subscale	516	−0.23	−0.31	−0.15
Kim et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ‐ Anxiety	202	−0.27	−0.39	−0.14
Lewis and Kliewer (1996)	Children′s Hope Scale	RCMAS	39	−0.34	−0.59	−0.027
Lloyd and Hastings (2009)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	138	−0.35	−0.49	−0.19
Lloyd and Hastings (2009)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	58	−0.36	−0.57	−0.11
Loo et al. (2012)	Trait Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	801	−0.17	−0.24	−0.10
Ludwikowska‐Świeboda and Lachowska (2019)	Trait Hope Scale*	STAI*	278	−0.43	−0.52	−0.33
Madan and Pakenham (2014)	Trait Hope Scale	BSI‐A	296	−0.17	−0.28	−0.06
Madan and Pakenham (2015)	Trait Hope Scale	BSI‐A	140	−0.27	−0.42	−0.11
Maikranz et al. (2006)	Children′s Hope Scale	BASC‐A	70	−0.41	−0.59	−0.19
Mak et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	19	−0.59	−0.82	−0.19
Martin et al. (2019)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	137	−0.56	−0.67	−0.43
Martins et al. (2018)	Children′s Hope Scale*	RCMAS‐2*	97	−0.23	−0.41	−0.03
Martins et al. (2018)	Children′s Hope Scale*	RCMAS‐2*	114	−0.37	−0.52	−0.20
May et al. (2015)	Trait Hope Scale	Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (Anxiety)	507	−0.23	−0.31	−0.15
Mednick (2005)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	62	−0.52	−0.68	−0.31
Michael and Snyder (2005)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI State	158	−0.30	−0.44	−0.15
Mitchell et al. (2009)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI State	43	−0.62	−0.78	−0.39
Monsson (2010)	Trait Hope Scale	Mental Health Inventory ‐ Anxiety	402	−0.38	−0.47	−0.30
Moss‐Pech et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	117	−0.08	−0.26	0.10
Muyan et al. (2016)	Trait Hope Scale	BAI	318	−0.34	−0.43	−0.24
Nearchou and Douglas (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	456	−0.28	−0.36	−0.19
Omani Samani et al. (2017)	Trait Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	180	−0.25	−0.38	−0.11
Parenteau et al. (2006)	State Hope Scale	STAI	28	−0.71	−0.98	−0.44
Peh et al. (2017)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS	144	−0.49	−0.63	−0.35
Pellerin et al. (2022)	CPC‐12‐State Hope Subscale*	DASS‐21*	1399	−0.53	−0.57	−0.49
Plante et al. (2000)	Trait Hope Scale	Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale – Short Form	150	−0.48	−0.62	−0.34
Poteat et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	BAI	580	−0.42	−0.49	−0.35
Rajandram et al. (2011)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	50	−0.38	−0.6	−0.11
Rambod et al. (2020)	Trait Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	350	−0.37	−0.46	−0.28
Rana (2018)	Trait Hope Scale	HAM‐A	10	−0.80	−0.95	−0.35
Riaz et al. (2014)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	300	−0.49	−0.57	−0.4
Ricker et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children‐10	166	−0.17	−0.31	−0.02
Ritschel et al. (2012)	Trait Hope Scale	ZSRA	56	−0.26	−0.49	0.00
Roth (2009)	Children′s Hope Scale	BASC‐A	32	−0.21	−0.52	0.15
Schofield et al. (2016)	State Hope Scale	HADS‐A	429	−0.43	−0.5	−0.35
Senger and Gallagher (2024)	Trait Hope Scale	OASIS	732	−0.21	−0.28	−0.14
Shanahan et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI State	186	−0.38	−0.50	−0.25
Shek Nam Ng et al. (2023)	Trait Hope Scale*	HADS‐A	134	−0.09	−0.26	0.081
Sheridan et al. (2015)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	268	−0.41	−0.51	−0.31
Simon et al. (2009)	Children′s Hope Scale	BASC‐A	44	−0.16	−0.44	0.144
Tam et al. (2018)	Children′s Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	439	−0.27	−0.35	−0.18
Todorov et al. (2019)	State Hope Scale	DASS‐21	195	−0.51	−0.61	−0.40
Umucu et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale	Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety	205	−0.44	−0.54	−0.32
Venning et al. (2011)	Trait Hope Scale	DASS‐21	3315	−0.12	−0.15	−0.09
Venning et al. (2007)	Children′s Hope Scale	DASS‐21	29	−0.35	−0.64	0.02
Wai‐Ming Mak et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale*	DASS‐21*	203	−0.61	−0.69	−0.52
Wang et al. (2017)	Trait Hope Scale*	STAI Trait*	231	−0.46	−0.56	−0.35
Wang et al. (2019)	Trait Hope Scale*	ZSRA*	710	−0.22	−0.29	−0.15
Watts (2001)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI	44	−0.62	−0.77	−0.40
Wells (2005)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI	271	−0.35	−0.45	−0.24
Xiaofei Xie et al. (2011)	Trait Hope Scale*	ZSRA*	494	−0.32	−0.40	−0.24
Yang and Chang (2016)	Trait Hope Scale	BAI	227	−0.24	−0.35	−0.11
Yang et al. (2016)	Trait Hope Scale*	ZSRA*	489	−0.43	−0.50	−0.36
Yeung et al. (2015)	Children′s Hope Scale*	HADS‐A*	712	−0.22	−0.29	−0.15
Yuen et al. (2014)	Trait Hope Scale*	BAI*	89	−0.35	−0.52	−0.15
Simple Mean Effect −0.35
Random Effects Weighted Mean Effect (r) −0.36 95% CI (−0.38, −0.32)
Test of Homogeneity ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(107\right)=863.14,p<0.001$
${\mathrm{{\rm I}}}^2=87.60\%$

^*Scale has been translated or adapted for a language other than English, ES effect size, STAI State Trait Anxiety Inventory, DASS Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, OASIS Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, HAM‐A Hamilton Anxiety Depression Rating Scale – Anxiety, HADS‐A Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale – Anxiety, MASQ‐AA Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire – Anxious Arousal, BAI Beck Anxiety Inventory, ZSRA Zung Self‐rating Anxiety Scale, RCADS Revised Children′s Anxiety and Depression Scale‐Short Version, RCMAS Revised Children′s Manifest Anxiety Scale, BSI‐Anxiety Brief Symptoms Inventory‐Anxiety

The effect sizes and confidence intervals for studies (k = 11) examining the longitudinal relationship between hope and trait anxiety are depicted in Table 2. The longitudinal studies included a combined sample size of 2,318 and had effect sizes (r) ranging from −0.77 to 0.05. The weighted mean effect size from the random effects analysis of the association between hope and anxiety in longitudinal studies was −0.27 (95% CI [−0.38, −0.17]). The fail‐safe n for the longitudinal effect size was 311. There was significant heterogeneity among the effect sizes, as indicated by the Q statistic ${\text{χ}}^2\left(11\right)$ = 59.06 p < 0.001.

Table 2.

Longitudinal Trait Anxiety Effect Sizes.

Citation	Hope scale type	Anxiety scales	N	ES (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Ai et al. (2007)	Trait Hope Scale	STAI Trait	309	−0.36	−0.45	−0.26
Besser and Zeigler‐Hill (2014)	Trait Hope Scale*	STAI State*	217	−0.27	−0.39	−0.14
Cheavens et al. (2006)	State Hope Scale	STAI Form Y	39	−0.77	−0.87	−0.60
Gallagher et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	HAM‐A	223	−0.16	−0.36	−0.03
Gallagher et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	OASIS	822	−0.15	−0.22	−0.08
Martin et al. (2019)	Trait Hope Scale	HADS‐A	108	0.05	−0.14	0.23
Parenteau et al. (2006)	State Hope Scale	STAI State	28	−0.34	−0.63	0.04
Poteat et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	BAI	366	−0.41	−0.49	−0.32
Ricker et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children‐10	118	−0.19	−0.33	−0.04
Ritschel et al. (2012)	Trait Hope Scale	Zung Self‐Rating Anxiety Scale	56	−0.15	−0.40	0.12
Roth (2009)	Children′s Hope Scale	BASC‐SR	32	−0.26	−0.56	0.10
Simple Mean Effect −0.27
Random Effects Weighted Mean Effect −0.27 95% CI (−0.38, −0.17)
Test of Homogeneity ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(10\right)=59.06,p<0.001$
${\mathrm{{\rm I}}}^2=89.20\%$

^*Scale has been translated or adapted for a language other than English, ES Effect Size, STAI State Trait Anxiety Inventory, HAM‐A Hamilton Anxiety Depression Rating Scale – Anxiety, OASIS Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, HADS‐A Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale – Anxiety, BAI Beck Anxiety Inventory, BASC‐SR Behavioral Assessment Scale for Children – Self Report

3.2. Hope and Disorder Specific Anxiety Measures

Tables 3, 4, 5, 6 present the effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals calculated from studies examining the relationships between hope and specific anxiety measures (situational anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and OCD). Effect sizes were generally moderate in strength. Based on the magnitude of the effect size, as well as the size of the confidence intervals, hope was more strongly associated with social anxiety disorder, r = −0.43 (95% CI [−0.48, −0.37]), compared to other specific anxiety measures and most weakly related to situation‐specific anxiety r = −0.22, (95% CI [−0.33, −0.10]). The overall relationship between hope and GAD were similar in magnitude and direction, r = −0.32 (95% CI [−0.41, −0.23]). There were only two studies that measured OCD (r = −0.34, r = −0.45), however the effect sizes from both were moderate in magnitude. As there was only one effect size measuring the association between hope and panic disorder, we reported the sole effect size r = −0.37. Based on a statistically significant Q statistic, effect sizes for situation‐specific anxiety, GAD, and social anxiety were different in magnitude. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity among the effect sizes measuring the association between hope and social anxiety disorder ${\chi }^2\left(4\right)$ = 1.59, p = 0.81.

Table 3.

Hope and Domain‐Specific Anxiety Effect Sizes.

Citation	Hope scale type	Anxiety type	Anxiety scale	N	ES (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Aghababaei et al. (2016)	Trait Hope Scale*	Death Anxiety	Death Anxiety Scale*	474	−0.03	−0.12	0.06
Barlow (2002)	Trait Hope Scale	Test Anxiety	MSLQ	282	−0.26	−0.36	−0.15
Barnett (2014)	Trait Hope Scale	Death Anxiety	Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale	182	−0.13	−0.27	0.02
Chitsaz et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale*	Competition Anxiety	SCAS*	149	−0.06	−0.22	0.10
Demirtaş and Uygun‐Eryurt (2020)	Children′s Hope Scale*	Math Anxiety	MASSES	300	−0.51	−0.59	−0.42
Feldman (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	Health Anxiety	Health Anxiety Inventory	222	−0.19	−0.31	−0.06
Gaynor (2004)	Trait Hope Scale	Competition Anxiety	SCAS	80	−0.18	−0.38	0.04
Heshmati et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale*	Health Anxiety	Short Health Anxiety Inventory*	200	−0.44	−0.55	−0.32
Onwuegbuzie (1998)	Trait Hope Scale	Academic Anxiety	SARS‐TC	109	−0.15	−0.32	0.04
Yıldırım and Güler (2021)	Trait Hope Scale*	Coronavirus Anxiety	Coronavirus Anxiety Scale*	168	−0.15	−0.29	0.00
Simple Mean Effect −0.21
Random Effects Weighted Mean Effect −0.22 95% CI (−0.33, −0.10)
Test of Homogeneity ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(9\right)=71.74,p<0.001$
${\mathrm{{\rm I}}}^2=84.80\%$

^*Scale has been translated or adapted for a language other than English, ES Effect Size, MSLQ, Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, MASESS Math Anxiety Scale for Elementary School Students, SCAS Sports Competitive Anxiety Scale, SARS‐TC Statistical Anxiety Rating Scale – Test and Class Anxiety

Table 4.

Hope and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) Effect Sizes.

Citation	Hope scale type	Anxiety scale	N	ES (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Catling et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	200	−0.24	−0.37	−0.11
Cowden et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	547	−0.44	−0.51	−0.37
Eden et al. (2020)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	425	0.40	0.32	0.48
Gallagher et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule‐GAD Clinical Severity Rating	62	−0.52	−0.68	−0.31
Geraghty et al. (2010)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	247	−0.27	−0.38	−0.15
Hamama‐Raz et al. (2023)	State Hope Scale	International Anxiety Questionnaire	2031	−0.31	−0.35	−0.27
Keiser et al. (2019)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	263	−0.36	−0.46	−0.25
Kelberer et al. (2018)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	90	−0.44	−0.59	−0.25
Kirby et al. (2021)	Children′s Hope Scale	Spence Children′s Anxiety Scale – GAD subscale	153	−0.33	−0.46	−0.18
McDermott et al. (2015)	Trait Hope Scale	Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms 62–GAD	2644	−0.29	−0.32	−0.26
Taha et al. (2021)	Trait Hope Scale*	GAD‐7*	139	−0.40	−0.53	−0.25
Vella et al. (2023)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	98	−0.34	−0.50	−0.15
Weinberg et al. (2016)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	105	−0.66	−0.76	−0.54
Weinberg et al. (2016)	Trait Hope Scale	GAD‐7	105	−0.39	−0.54	−0.21
Yao et al. (2022)	Trait Hope Scale*	GAD‐7*	2390	−0.23	−0.27	−0.19
Simple Mean Effect −0.32
Random Effects Weighted Mean Effect −0.32 95% CI (−0.41, −0.23)
Test of Homogeneity ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(14\right)=281.51,p<0.001$
${\mathrm{{\rm I}}}^2=95.03\%$

^*Scale has been translated or adapted for a language other than English, ES Effect Size,

Table 5.

Hope and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) Effect Sizes.

Citation	Hope scale type	Anxiety scale	N	ES (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Constantino et al. (2017)	State Hope Scale	Social Interactions Anxiety Scale	178	−0.48	−0.59	−0.36
Felsman et al. (2019)	Children′s Hope Scale	Mini Social Phobia Inventory	66	−0.34	−0.54	−0.11
Gallagher et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule‐SAD Clinical Severity Rating	58	−0.48	−0.66	−0.25
McDermott et al. (2015)	Trait Hope Scale	CCAPS 62 – SAD	2644	−0.44	−0.47	−0.41
Sahranç et al. (2018)	Children′s Hope Scale*	Social Anxiety Scale for Children	289	−0.42	−0.51	−0.32
Simple Mean Effect −0.43
Random Effects Weighted Mean Effect −0.43 95% CI (−0.48, −0.37)
Test of Homogeneity ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(4\right)=1.59,p=0.81$
${\mathrm{{\rm I}}}^2=0\%$

^*Scale has been translated or adapted for a language other than English, ES Effect Size, CCAPS‐62‐SAD Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms‐62 Social Anxiety Subscale

Table 6.

Anxiety and Obsessive‐Compulsive Disorder and Panic Disorder Effect Sizes.

Citation	Hope scale type	Anxiety disorder	Anxiety scale	N	ES (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Bishar (2007)	Trait Hope Scale	OCD	MMPI‐2 – OBS	48	−0.34	‐0.57	−0.06
Gallagher et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	OCD	Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule‐OCD Clinical Severity Rating	44	−0.45	−0.66	−0.18
Gallagher et al. (2020)	State Hope Scale	Panic Disorder	Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule‐PD Clinical Severity Rating	59	−0.37	−0.57	−0.13

^*Scale has been translated or adapted for a language other than English, ES Effect Size, MMPI‐2 – OBS Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2‐ Harris Lingoes Scale for OCD

3.3. Moderator Analyses

Moderator analyses were conducted for the effect sizes measuring the cross‐sectional relationship between hope and trait anxiety to determine whether heterogeneity in effect sizes was due to gender, age group, or the sampled population. The first subgroup analysis for the potential moderator of sex included 106 effect sizes, as two studies did not provide descriptive statistics for the sex of the participants. Samples with greater than 50% female participants were categorized as majority female; the same was true for samples categorized as majority male. Out of 106 effect sizes, 72 had a majority female sample. The weighted mean effect size for both majority female and majority male effect sizes was r = −0.35, with confidence intervals that did not include 0 (Table 7). As confirmed by a test of homogeneity, effect sizes with different female‐to‐male ratios were similar, thus showing that sex may not significantly moderate the relationship between hope and trait anxiety.

Table 7.

Moderator Analyses among Cross‐Sectional Trait Anxiety Effect Sizes.

Group	Effect Size (r)	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95%CI	Chi‐Square (Q Statistic)
Sex
Mostly Female	−0.35	−0.38	−0.32
Mostly Male	−0.35	−0.41	−0.28
				${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(1\right)=0.01,p=0.94$
Age Group
Child	−0.32	−0.39	−0.25
Adult	−0.36	−0.39	−0.32
				${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(1\right)=0.87,p=0.35$
Setting
Community	−0.37	−0.42	−0.31
Student	−0.34	−0.38	−0.29
Physical Illness	−0.34	−0.40	−0.29
Mental Health	−0.26	−0.32	−0.20
				${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2\left(3\right)=7.98,p<0.05$

The next moderator analyses examined whether there were differences in the strength of the relationship between hope and trait anxiety for children compared to adults. The results indicated that this relationship was not significantly impacted by developmental stage, ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2$(1) = 0.87, p = 0.35. Out of the 108 cross‐sectional studies examining hope and trait anxiety, 3 studies were eliminated from the age group sub‐analysis because their samples consisted of a mixture of adults and children. A total of 20 effect sizes came from studies with exclusively child samples, and the mean effect size of this relationship was r = −0.32 (95% CI [−0.39, −0.25]). Though the mean effect size for this relationship was marginally higher in magnitude among adults, (k = 88; r = −0.36 (95% CI [−0.39, −0.32]), this difference was not statistically significant.

When examining the differences in the relationship between hope and trait anxiety within different populations, study samples were categorized into community, students, individuals with physical illnesses, and mental health treatment‐seeking individuals. The moderator analysis reflected significant differences in effect sizes based on the type of sampled population, ${\mathrm{{\rm X}}}^2$(3) = 7.98 p < 0.05. The effect sizes within samples of students, k = 40, r = −0.34 (95% CI [−0.38, −0.29]) and individuals with physical illnesses, k = 23, r = −0.34 (95% CI [−0.40, −0.29]), were comparable. The largest mean effect size was derived from the 32 studies with community samples, r = −0.37 (95% CI [−0.42, −0.31]). The mean effect sizes from studies (k = 8) of mental health treatment‐seeking individuals suggested a weaker in magnitude effect between cross‐sectional hope and anxiety r = −0.26 (95% CI [−0.32, −0.20]). The effect size for mental health treatment‐seeking samples was numerically smaller than in other samples, but overlapping confidence intervals suggest this difference should be interpreted cautiously despite the significant omnibus χ².

4. Discussion

This meta‐analytic review examined the relationship between hope and trait anxiety in cross‐sectional and prospective studies, as well as its association with disorder‐specific forms of anxiety, including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, situation‐specific anxiety, panic disorder, and OCD. Higher hope was consistently associated with lower anxiety, with mean effect sizes generally in the moderate range. This relationship was evident in both cross‐sectional and prospective research, though prospective effects were slightly weaker. Among specific disorders, hope was most strongly associated with lower social anxiety (large effect sizes), followed by generalized anxiety (moderate effect sizes) and situation‐specific anxiety (small‐to‐moderate effect sizes). Fewer studies examined OCD and panic disorder, but these also showed moderate negative correlations. Together, these findings are consistent with the possibility that hope may be a protective factor against anxiety and its disorders, though causal conclusions cannot be drawn from the present meta‐analytic review.

The inverse relationship between hope and anxiety aligns with the broader literature linking hope to better mental health and functioning (Gallagher and Lopez 2017). Prior research suggests hope is associated with less symptoms of other emotional disorders, including PTSD and depression (Gallagher et al. 2020; Ritschel and Sheppard ²⁰¹⁷), as well as lower distress and better adjustment to stressors like trauma, medical illness, and bereavement (Glass et al. 2009; Lee ²⁰⁰¹; Long et al. ²⁰²⁰; Michael and Snyder ²⁰⁰⁵; Wright et al. ²⁰¹¹). Hope is also associated with greater life satisfaction, purpose, subjective and psychological well‐being, and quality of life in clinical and community samples (Alarcon et al. 2013; Gallagher and Lopez ²⁰⁰⁹; Ong et al. ²⁰¹⁸). Viewed in the context of the broader literature, our findings align with the view that hope is a source of resilience supporting mental health (Snyder 2002).

Results from the meta‐analysis of prospective studies suggest that hope may be protective given its observed association with lower trait‐like anxiety over time. Anxiety occurs in response to perceived threats and is related to expectations of negative outcomes and reduced perceived control (Barlow 2000). In contrast, hope involves positive expectations about achieving goals and a sense of control grounded in the ability to identify and pursue pathways around obstacles, thereby reducing the perceived severity of potential threats (Arnau 2017; Snyder ²⁰⁰²). Extant literature supports the association between hope and greater perceived control (Hall et al. 2016; Munoz et al. ²⁰¹⁷), and longitudinal research suggests an indirect relationship between hope and anxiety through perceived emotional control (Gallagher et al. 2021). Those higher in hope typically experience more positive affect during goal pursuit, whereas those lower in hope experience more negative affect (Gallagher et al. 2019).

Moderator analyses indicated that cross‐sectional associations between hope and trait anxiety were generally consistent across sex and age groups, though effect sizes varied slightly by population type. Effect sizes were marginally weaker in studies with mental health treatment‐seeking samples than community samples, which showed comparable effect sizes to studies with students and individuals with medical illnesses. This difference may reflect range restriction, whereby elevated anxiety and correspondingly lower hope in clinical samples (Snyder et al. 1991) reduce variability in both variables and attenuate observed correlations (Sackett and Yang 2000). In such highly symptomatic, mental health treatment‐seeking groups, anxiety may be so elevated and chronic (Spielberger et al. 1983) that hope explains less additional variance in symptoms, particularly when other potent treatment factors (e.g., medication and/or psychotherapy) are also influencing outcomes. In contrast, community samples—which generally have less severe anxiety and greater variability in hope—showed stronger effects, perhaps because personal resources like hope play a larger role when individuals are not necessarily engaged in targeted strategies for anxiety reduction.

Although the current meta‐analysis cannot directly speak to causal mechanisms, particularly given the predominance of cross‐sectional and nonclinical samples, the results are generally consistent with prior clinical research suggesting that hope may function as a common therapeutic process and as a contextual factor influencing anxiety treatment outcomes. Positive expectancies, including hope, have been proposed as “common factors” that facilitate recovery across psychotherapy modalities (Frank and Frank 1993; Snyder and Taylor ²⁰⁰⁰). Several longitudinal and process‐focused studies indicate that greater hope during treatment is linked to subsequent reductions in anxiety and other symptoms of emotional disorders (Bartholomew 2023; Gallagher et al. ²⁰²⁰; Long et al. ²⁰²⁵; Teplow et al. ²⁰²⁵), including in gold‐standard trauma‐focused treatments such as Prolonged Exposure and Cognitive Processing Therapy (Gallagher and Resick 2012; Gilman et al. ²⁰¹²). CBT builds coping skills and fosters confidence in managing distress (Dobson and Dobson 2016), while exposure supports patients in confronting feared situations in ways that challenge and reduce catastrophic expectations (Foa and McLean ²⁰¹⁶; Gallagher et al. ²⁰¹³). Other interventions designed to enhance hope have shown benefits for reducing anxiety across formats (individual, group, couples) and populations, including students, community members, trauma survivors, and patients with depression (Cheavens and Guter 2017; Lopez et al. ²⁰⁰⁰; Snyder ²⁰⁰²). This highlights the value of additional research on whether enhancing hope could improve clinical outcomes for individuals with anxiety.

4.1. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

This meta‐analysis included a large number of studies examining the cross‐sectional associations between hope and trait anxiety, and to a lesser extent, their prospective relationship. It also examined hope′s associations with different forms of anxiety, though this literature was more limited. Still, fail‐safe N analyses suggest the findings were not meaningfully influenced by publication bias. Further, hope was operationalized based on Snyder′s widely used cognitive–motivational model. This ensured construct specificity and consistent measurement, though other conceptualizations (e.g., emotion‐focused models; Herth ¹⁹⁹¹) warrant exploration.

Future research should investigate how hope relates to other types of anxiety (e.g., health, agoraphobia) and examine potential mechanisms, like adaptive coping, perceived control, and social support. For example, adaptive appraisals and coping have been identified as mediators of the relationship between hope and dysphoria (Chang and DeSimone ²⁰⁰¹) and may function similarly for anxiety, as hope is theorized to promote positive goal‐related expectations, enhance perceived control, and reduce perceived threat severity. Future work should also investigate moderators, including racial, ethnic, or cultural factors; for instance, spirituality was found to moderate relationship between hope and anxiety among Latino youth (DiPierro et al. ²⁰¹⁸).

5. Conclusions

Hope is broadly associated with lower concurrent anxiety, with the strongest effects for social anxiety (large) and trait anxiety (moderate), followed by generalized anxiety (moderate) and situation‐specific anxiety (small‐to‐moderate). Prospective findings also support an inverse relationship between hope and trait anxiety over time. Cross‐sectional associations were consistent across ages and genders but slightly varied by population type, with numerically weaker effects in treatment‐seeking samples. Observed variance suggested the presence of other moderators, which may be a fruitful focus for future work. These findings, particularly the prospective effects, align with the broader literature positioning hope as a resilience factor and potential intervention target, underscoring the importance of examining its role in psychotherapy and better mental health.

Supporting information

Supplementary Table.

Richardson, A. L. , Long L. J., and Gallagher M. W.. 2025. “Hope and Anxiety: A Meta‐Analytic Review.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 82: 227–247. 10.1002/jclp.70068.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.