Agentic and Receptive Hope: Understanding Hope in the Context of Religiousness and Spirituality through the Narratives of Salvadoran Youth

Abstract

Hope contributes to positive development in adolescents, and religious and spiritual contexts may be particularly important for developing and supporting hope. However, extant literature on hope, religion, and spirituality neglects their synergistic relation, leaving questions about how they work together to support development. In this study, we explore how religiousness and spirituality (R/S) inform hope by identifying unique synergies that might be particularly useful in difficult contexts. Multilevel qualitative content analyses of interviews conducted with 18 thriving Salvadoran adolescents (50% female, M_age = 16.39 years, SD = 1.83) involved in a faith-based program provided evidence that the ideological and relational resources associated with R/S informed these adolescents’ agentic and receptive hopes. Agentic hopes, identified through expressed hopeful future expectations, revealed that adolescents held beyond-the-self hopes focused on benefiting three distinct targets: God, community, and family. Youth also described “sanctified hopes”, which were hopes focused on fulfilling God’s purposes directly and indirectly. Analyses of receptive hopes, which consider how hope is shaped and empowered by context, revealed that for these youth, hope was experienced in seven key contexts: self, caring adult relationships, family, God, youth development sponsor, social activities, and peers. Implications for fostering hope in R/S contexts within low-to-middle-income countries are discussed.

1. Introduction

1.1. Agentic and Receptive Hope: Understanding Hope in the Context of Spirituality through the Narratives of Salvadoran Youth

Research suggests that hope serves a protective and promotive function for adolescents in adversity by enhancing their beliefs in their coping capabilities and by orienting them toward positive imagined futures (Callina et al. 2014; Carretta et al. 2014). Religious and spiritual contexts may be particularly important in developing a young person’s sense of hope, given the ideological resources and relationships they offer (Huuskes et al. 2016; King et al. 2020a). In addition, hope, religion, and spirituality contribute to known indicators of positive development in adolescence, including thriving and well-being (e.g., Gooden and McMahon 2016; Hardy and King 2019; Kirby et al. 2021; Merolla et al. 2021).

Throughout the literature, religiousness and spirituality are conceptualized and operationalized in many different ways. We define religiousness as an individual’s psychological capacities to participate in the doctrines, practices, rituals, and communities associated with religious traditions (King and Boyatzis 2015). Spirituality involves the psychological capacities necessary for experiencing and responding to one’s perceptions of transcendence that may occur within religion (King et al. 2020a). Given that the youth in this study are embedded in a faith-based program that engages both religiousness and spirituality (R/S), our focus is less on distinguishing between the two, but rather to unpack the relation between R/S and hope. Consequently, we treat R/S as multidimensional and overlapping constructs that both describe people’s capacity to engage in their perception of transcendence and the beliefs, practices, and the communities surrounding them.

Although empirical research has attempted to map the association between hope and R/S as they relate to various outcomes such as positive coping and prosocial behavior, the findings are mixed, suggesting both moderating (DiPerro et al. 2018) and mediating relations (Rose et al. 2018). Though these initial studies exploring hope and R/S contribute valuable information, researchers are still left to wonder: how do these two constructs work together?

This question is key because understanding the links between hope and R/S may help provide insights for supporting positive youth development, particularly in the context of adversity. The experience of adversity, including poverty and gang violence, can contribute to distress in adolescents that exceeds their abilities to cope effectively (Butcher et al. 2015). Nonetheless, there is much research that indicates that adolescents exhibit positive development even amidst adversity (e.g., Consoli et al. 2015). This appears partly dependent on the promotive and protective factors available at different ecological levels (Toi et al. 2013). For example, at the individual level, ethnic identity can be promotive, while at the relational level, positive relationshps with adults can contribute to coping in adversity (Zimmerman et al. 2013). In cases of adversity, hope and R/S may work together to contribute to resilience and thriving. Within psychology, resilience involves the capacity to adapt and return to normalcy in the face of adversity (Riley and Masten 2005), and thriving is the process of adaptive development that occurs when youth strengths and contextual assets align in ways that youth may contribute beyond the self and may occur in both high risk and supportive environments (King et al. 2011; Lerner et al. 2003).

Hope researchers suggest that hope is shaped by context (Snow 2018), with faith-based contexts being particularly influential (Bernardo 2010). However, predominant definitions and studies of hope emphasize agentic hope—a unidimensional definition of hope that emphasizes personal agency and overlooks the influence of context. Recognizing that hope is embedded in an ecological context, Snow (2018) identifies that hope has a receptive component whose experience is shaped and empowered by context. To identify how being embedded in a faith-based yet adverse context informs agentic and receptive hope, we conducted and analyzed in-depth qualitative interviews with a group of thriving exemplars in El Salvador involved in a faith-based context and nominated for thriving, which included being hopeful and committed to their faith. We hypothesize that R/S offer ideological (beliefs) and relational resources to support the development of hope, and that R/S and the development of hope are linked in an agenctic and also a receptive manner. We report the specific findings here to develop a deeper understanding of the processes in which hope develops in adolescents within their contexts.

1.2. Hope in Context

Different conceptual approaches to hope in the psychological literature have been organized into focusing on agency or receptivity (Snow 2018). Dominant theories of hope are those which emphasize agentic hope—a desire for a given hopeful end result and one’s belief in its attainability (Callina et al. 2014; Gallagher and Lopez 2017; Snyder et al. 2002). Viewed this way, hope orients youth toward their imagined futures, shaping behaviors, choices, and relational interactions accordingly. A young person’s hopeful future expectations (HFE), or what they hope for, may be oriented toward the self (e.g., I want to become a teacher) or others (e.g., I want my family to be financially secure). When aligned with prosocial contexts, adolescent HFE may extend further beyond future self expectations toward future expectations that benefit others such as their families or communities. In some cases, even when the expressed hope is self-focused (e.g., I want to have a good job…), it may serve a beyond-the-self purpose (e.g., …to take my family out of poverty). Other-oriented and culturally-valued contributions such as these have been identified as indicators of positive development (Bundick et al. 2010; King and Mangan 2021; Lerner et al. 2003).

Though useful, agentic theories of hope highlight only one of hope’s facets—that of a personal agentic desire or belief and, in some cases, subsequent behavior. This unidimensional understanding of hope is inconsistent with relational developmental systems-based models of human development which emphasize mutually influential relations between the developing individual and the varying contexts in which the individual is embedded (Overton 2015). Strictly agentic conceptualizations of hope neglect the bidirectional interactions between “hopers” and their contexts, namely the way context informs the understanding and experience of hope as well as hoped for ends, or “hopes” themselves. For example, informed by a faith-based context, youth may experience hope as informed and sustained by their belief in God and likewise endorse hopes that are consistent with what they believe is “God’s plan” for them (e.g., spreading the gospel). At the same time, hope may act as an important motivator that encourages youth to capitalize on social resources in their context and encourage prosocial contribution (Callina et al. 2017). Recognizing that hope is embedded in an ecological context, Snow (2018) identified that hope has not only an agentic quality but also a receptive component.

Receptivity theories of hope suggest that hope is a socially influenced virtue that is shaped by one’s context and helps to empower agentic hope (Snow 2018). Hope is rarely experienced in isolation is experienced because of and through others. Receptivity approaches highlight cognitive appraisals that point to the socially embedded experience of hope. For example, people may find hope in family or God. The embedded nature of hope is clarified through relational developmental system (RDS) models of human development (Lerner et al. 2015) that emphasize mutually influential relations between the developing individual and the existing relationships, beliefs, and norms surrounding them (Overton 2015). Existing conceptualizations of hope, such as that of receptive hope, readily lend themselves to RDS-based framing with a focus on person ← → context relations that acknowledge that hope is experienced relationally. Research demonstrates that supportive relationships and contexts offer resources that inform and nurture hope (Callina et al. 2017; Stoddard et al. 2011) and may shape the way youth experience hope (Bernardo 2010; Snow 2018). Likewise, these social relationships and contexts, including religious, spiritual, and cultural contexts, influence and are influenced by one another (Abo-Zena and King 2021). This suggests that rather than existing in isolation, hope is informed by and experienced within multiple, interacting social contexts. Clarifying the contextual embeddedness of hope further, Bernardo (2010) posits that hope has external subdimensions, termed “loci,” that convey the meaning assigned to hope, contribute to agency, and sustain hope in moments of struggle. The three loci of hope identified as particularly influential are family, peers, and supernatural or spiritual beings (Bernardo 2010). Because receptive hope is received from or inspired by sources outside the self, this form of hope may persist in otherwise hopeless situations where personal agency is restricted (e.g., conditions of resource deficiency). Recognizing the ideological and relational resources present in religious contexts in particular, we are interested in understanding how being embedded in a religious context informs both agentic and receptive hope.

1.3. Religiousness/Spirituality as Context

Research demonstrates that religious contexts are fertile ground for developing virtues like hope (King et al. 2020b; Schnitker et al. 2019). R/S can be predictive of hope (Marques et al. 2013) and can work with hope to promote positive development (Rose et al. 2018). However, dominated by studies of agentic hope, the potential ways that R/S may inform hope remain unknown, providing no information about how hope and R/S work together and promote positive adolescent development.

Theoretically, R/S influence hope by providing a belief system, relationships, and transcendent practices which shape and sustain hope (King et al. 2020a). R/S offer beliefs about sources of hope beyond the self (e.g., God, the universe, the transcendent). For example, informed by R/S, hope may be understood as having an attitude of patient expectation wherein one waits on God and seeks out wise counsel from faith leaders (Snow 2018). At the same time, prosocial, moral, and spiritual narratives common in religious contexts may orient or support hopeful future expectations that are for the benefit of others (e.g., toward family, community, and humanity; King 2008; King et al. 2011). These beyond-the-self hopes motivate prosocial behavior that is indicative of thriving. Research well documents that adolescent spirituality is associated with a sense of commitment to and responsibility for others (King et al. 2014; Hardy and King 2019). In the present study, we posit that when youth are embedded in a spiritual context, transcendent beliefs inform their experience of hope.

Religious contexts also provide relationships that teach youth about hope, model hope amidst adversity, and provide practical support and mentorship to address barriers to hope (DuBois and Silverthorn 2005; Liang and Ketcham 2017). Empirically, social connections and spirituality are positively associated with hope (King et al. 2020b). These spiritually-based relationships offer youth spaces to talk about their experiences, receive guidance, and build social support in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs. Conversations about transcendence with supportive and caring adults can facilitate meaning-making and beyond-the-self goals (King et al. 2011; Riveros and Immordino-Yang 2021). For example, a young person who is feeling discouraged may find their hope renewed through discussions about trusting God and encouragement to engage in spiritual coping strategies that align with their transcendent narrative identity. Finally, the caring and mentoring relationships may encourage prosocial behavior by modeling and encouraging behavioral patterns that sustain hope while simultaneously steering young people away from maladaptive behaviors (DuBois and Silverthorn 2005; Haddad et al. 2011; Miranda-Chan et al. 2016). Thus, relationships created and nurtured in religious contexts can inform and bolster hope. While the discussion above indicates a positive relationship between R/S and hope, we recognize that this is not always the case. Some religious contexts do not support hope, particularly contexts in which conformity and fear dominate, but generally, R/S appear to be positively related to the development of hope.

1.4. Faith-Based Youth Programs and Thriving Exemplars

Hope is especially poignant in the context of adversity. Consequently, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where youth may be marginalized by issues related to poverty and concerns about safety and violence, are an important context for studying hope (see YouthPower Learning 2017; Rojas-Flores et al. 2013). Although exposure to adversity differs across regions and communities, many Salvadoran adolescents face multiple stressors, including high risk of adolescent homicide (UNICEF 2017) and poverty, that could reasonably be expected to impede hope, spirituality, and indicators of positive development. However, R/S in El Salvador remain deeply integrated with cultural expression (De la Torre et al. 2014) and are regularly cited as key resources for adolescents. While we recognize variations in faith traditions, religious expression, and engagement in a religious community, important elements of R/S in El Salvador which may contribute to hope, R/S, and resilience in Salvadoran adolescents include attending church services, prayer, relationships with clergy, and faith healing practices (Christian et al. 2015). In addition, some adolescents may endorse cultural values such as familismo, which involves loyalty and solidarity to one’s family, and collectivismo, which is characterized by empathy and concern for the in-group, prioritizes social relationships and has been identified as protective for adolescents in adverse contexts (e.g., Salas-Wright et al. 2014; Springer et al. 2006). Nonetheless, it is important to consider that there may be meaningful differences in the level of endorsement and internalization of these values, even within traditionally collectivistic Salvadoran families. Describing how R/S and the relationships offered within religious contexts inform hope in adolescents in this LMIC may provide insights for supporting positive youth development in the context of adversity (King et al. 2020b).

In LMICs, religious contexts are particularly helpful in providing meaning for hope (e.g., Erikson 1968; Krause and Pargament 2018), as well as the above-noted resources, such as practical support and mentorship, offered in such settings. Youth development programs seeking to promote positive youth development (PYD) in cases of extreme need in LMICs are frequently offered through congregational settings and faith-based organizations, such as the programs of Compassion International (CI) (see Sim and Peters 2014; Tirrell et al. 2019). Involvement in faith-based programming administered in community-based congregational settings embeds youth in a spiritually-rich ideological and relational context wherein spirituality is emphasized and youth are intentionally connected to caring adults (King et al. 2019; Sim and Peters 2014; Tirrell et al. 2019).

Exemplar methodology is a well-established means of gaining rich descriptions of understudied concepts (Bronk et al. 2013; King et al. 2014) such as the means through which R/S informs hope. Consistent with exemplar methodology, the youth in this study are treated as experts, acknowledging cultural nuances and allowing youth to describe phenomena based on personal experience and understanding (Bronk et al. 2013; King et al. 2013). The youth in this study were nominated as thriving in adversity and possessing hope and R/S. Within psychology, thriving is the process of adaptive development that is marked by attitudes and behaviors that benefit the self and society (King and Mangan 2021; Lerner et al. 2003). These thriving exemplars are well suited for a highly specific and critical observation of hope and R/S among youth in faith-based contexts.

1.5. Current Study

We undertake a unique qualitative study and are unaware of other “hope” studies using qualitative exemplar data. We aim to investigate the nuanced relationship between R/S and hope in adolescents who are thriving in an LMIC. Specifically, we sought to better understand hope and R/S among a group of thriving Salvadoran youth nominated for possessing high levels of R/S and hope by conducting semi-structured interviews about their future hopes and experiences of hope. The youth in this study were nominated specifically as having high levels of hope and R/S, making their experience of hope especially unique. Examining hope and R/S in those who are most likely to exude them fully provides maximum insights into the underlying connections between these two inter-related constructs. We hypothesized that, informed by their religious context, the agentic hopes of these youth would reflect aspirations focused on benefiting others, and secondly, that evidence of receptive hope would emerge through descriptions of hope experienced in and through relationships.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is part of a larger, mixed-methods study of positive youth development (Tirrell et al. 2019). The current study was based on an inductive and deductive analysis of interviews of thriving exemplars. The following details the relevant aspects of the research design and the data analytic strategy of our current efforts to understand the relations between hope and spirituality.

2.1. Participants

Participants were 18 Salvadoran youth engaged in CI-supported programming sites operating through local congregations in three different regions in El Salvador. These youth were nominated and interviewed for this study specifically because of their experience of living in a LMIC, being actively engaged in a religious context, and being nominated for possessing high levels of the constructs of interest in this study. Nominators for this study were local directors of the three different CI congregation-based child development programs (CDP). Given their program involvement and regular interaction with the children, these nominators were familiar with the children in their program. First, the participants in this study were engaged in CI-supported programming. To be eligible for this programming, youth must experience financial hardship and lack outside scholarship. Further, this programming is provided daily and takes place in a faith-based program (e.g., local church congregation). Secondly, as exemplars, these youth were nominated as possessing high levels of hope and R/S. With regard to R/S, as indicated in nomination criteria (Appendix B), nominators were asked to identify youth who demonstrated a strong commitment to their faith and connection to God. For hope, they were asked to identify youth who had goals, pursued these goals, and lived in a way that indicated that they were on their way toward a hopeful future. We recognize that as exemplars, these youth are very unique, and as such, the results of this study are not generalizable to the larger Salvadoran adolescent population. Nonetheless, this sample was purposively selected due to their capacity to provide rich descriptions of hope and R/S in the context of a religious context amidst adversity. Participants’ ages ranged from 14 to 19 years (M_age = 16.39 years, SD_age = 1.83) and 50% were female. Participants had been enrolled in CI-supported faith-based programs for between 8 to 14 years (M = 11.17 years, SD = 1.86). Participants reported family religion as 56% Evangelical, 22% Christian, and 22% Catholic. CI-supported youth are eligible to enroll in programming based on several criteria including age, household monthly income, and lack of outside sponsorship.

2.2. Instrument

The interview protocol (Appendix A), which included formal questions and question probes to elicit increased depth of response, was theory-based and designed to encourage open discussion of personal experiences with various concepts, including hope and spirituality. As part of the larger study, the interview protocol started with general questions about their interests and their sense of self (Hart and Damon 1988) and then moved to their opinions about and experiences of thriving (King et al. 2014; King et al. 2013), their personal strengths, faith and spirituality (King et al. 2014), ecological assets in their life, important relationships, critical events in their life (Flanagan 1954), their sense of purpose (Damon 2008; Bundick et al. 2006) and future orientation (Mueller et al. 2013), how they coped with adversity, and what brought them hope (Bernardo 2010; Callina et al. 2017) and joy (King 2020; King and Defoy 2020). The interview segments of interest in the present study were those which asked about future orientation, faith and spirituality, and experiences of hope specifically.

2.3. Procedure

Nomination criteria for the present study consisted of 25 Likert-type scale items (Appendix B) that were largely adapted from a spiritual exemplar protocol developed in a previous study of exemplary youth (see King et al. 2014). These criteria were informed by positive youth development and thriving (Lerner et al. 2015), character strengths (Lerner and Callina 2014; Schnitker et al. 2019), and spirituality and faith (King et al. 2014). To ensure cultural sensitivity and appropriateness, all nomination criteria were reviewed and approved by CI regional and global staff. Program directors from three sites served as nominators and submitted completed forms and demographic information for 12 adolescents each. In order to maximize representation by age and gender, the research team then selected 6 adolescents to interview from each project site.

Following procurement of consent and assent for each youth, in-person semi-structured interviews were completed by members of the US research team at the program’s local facility. In most cases (n = 14), interviews were completed in English with spontaneous Spanish interpretation by an independent Salvadoran contractor. In a handful of interviews (n = 4), a fluent Spanish-speaking interviewer conducted the interview in Spanish. To reduce possible potential effects of translation, interpreters were trained in the interview protocol and interpretation procedures prior to the commencement of interviews. Interviews lasted an average of 85 min and were audio recorded.

Upon completion of data collection, all interviews were transcribed verbatim by either bilingual members of the US research team or an independently contracted transcription service. Spanish components of the interview were translated into English by bilingual members of the research team. Translation was completed utilizing a side-by-side method adapted from Clark et al. (2017). The source language (Spanish) appeared verbatim in the first column, and the translated version (English) was placed in the second column, with each conversational turn in one row. This approach supports the maintenance of accuracy and integrity in the translation of the interview data (Clark et al. 2017). This translation was then cross-checked for accuracy in two rounds.

2.4. Data Analysis

This study involved two major rounds of analysis, both of which utilized Nvivo Version 12 to code interview transcripts. As part of a larger study (Tirrell et al. 2019), in the first round of analysis a team of six coded the entirety of each interview transcripts for a total of 13 constructs, including hope and spirituality, the foci of this study. Coding was completed blind, meaning that each coder was unable to see the coding completed by other members of the coding team. Each interview was coded by three members of the research team. Coders held consensus meetings in trios after coding each transcript in order to address questions and resolve discrepancies. After every set of three transcripts coded, the entire research team of six then coded one transcript to ensure consensus and assess reliability. The team of six coders held consensus meetings to address questions, resolve discrepancies, and modify code definitions when necessary. This process was then repeated until all 18 transcripts were coded. As a final consensus and reliability check, two members of the research leadership team then spot-checked coding on each of the interview transcripts.

For the analysis completed for this paper, all segments related to hope were isolated for follow-up, in-depth coding by a team of three coders—one from the original coding team and two new coders. Coder 1 was a Mexican-American female, coder 2 was a Caucasian female, and coder 3 was a Caucasian male. It is important to highlight that none of the coders identified as Salvadoran, which may influence the coding process and subsequent interpretations. To demonstrate mindfulness of this limitation, there was regular consultation with a Salvadoran cultural liaison to confirm accurate interpretation and clarify cultural idioms. In addition, coders collectively reviewed coded segments to confirm agreement and address discrepancies. An inductive and deductive thematic approach was used to further understand how R/S may be related to hope (Creswell 2006). This two-phase methodology is helpful in that it uses pre-established, theoretically-informed categories recognized in the literature first (deductive phase), then provides opportunity for identifying categories beyond the existing literature and sensitive to the specific sample’s experience and context (inductive phase; Elo and Kyngas 2008). Given the existing literature, initially deductive coding was informed by conceptualization of hope as having agentic and receptive components. To assess the agentic aspect of hope, which has been studied in developmental psychology by identifying what adolescents hope for, we drew upon Callina and colleagues’ (2014) HFE to devise codes. Consequently, we analyzed the hope segments for hoped-for aspirations and their meanings. Next, given our interest in understanding cultural nuances in HFE and the ways R/S may inform HFE, we implemented an inductive approach to identify the most salient categories of their HFE.

To assess the receptive aspect of hope (Snow 2018), an understudied form of hope that considers the social embeddedness of hope, we initially drew upon Bernardo’s (2010) conceptualization of “loci of hope” to capture the participants’ experiences of hope. After deductively identifying segments pertaining to potential loci of hope, we inductively coded all of these segments for the most salient categories. After coding the segments pertaining to receptive hope for loci of hope, we inductively coded the remaining segments that described hope being contextually informed. This analysis yielded an additional code and subcategory of receptive hope.

In summary, the codes were identified to capture the essence and meaning of the HFE and the experiences of hope. The codebook is presented in

Table 1. Agentic and Receptive Hope Codebook.

Code	Definition
Agentic Hope:
God	Exemplars’ description of having hope/expectation for God or their faith. Includes hoping to trust in God, grow faith, etc.
Self	Exemplars’ description of having hope/expectation for themselves. This includes their own career, financial security, safety, etc.
Family	Exemplars’ description of having hope/expectation for their families. This includes hoping to help, support, heal, etc.
Community	Exemplars’ description of having hope/expectations for the community. This includes hoping for their community to be safe, prosperous, evangelized, etc.
Receptive Hope:
Self	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in oneself (i.e., me, my heart, my soul, etc.). Finding hope in/through the self, renewing hope through personal decisions, self-confidence through hope.
Family	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in family (e.g., my mom, parents, brother, aunt). Experiencing hope in/through family, family members renewing hope when it is lost/discouraged.
Peers	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in peers (e.g., best friend, other youth in youth program, etc.). Finding hope in/through friends/peers, friends/peers renewing hope when it is lost/discouraged.
God/Spirituality	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in God or their faith (e.g., God, prayer, religion, faith, etc.). Finding hope in/through God/spirituality, God renewing hope when it is lost/discouraged.
Caring Relationships	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in caring relationships (e.g., with tutors, faith leaders, etc.). Finding hope in/relationships. Caring relationships as renewing hope when it is lost/discouraged.
Social Activities	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in social activities (e.g., worship team, workshops, activities, etc.).
Youth Development Program Sponsor	Exemplars’ description of experiencing hope in their youth development program sponsor.

. Once all interviews had been coded, frequency data were calculated.

3. Results

The following section reports the findings of the analysis of HFE and experiences of hope found in the 18 interviews of the thriving exemplars and presents portions of the narratives. We report the frequency for each category of the HFE (agentic hope) and each of the different contexts hope was experienced in (receptive hope). Frequency is defined as the number of exemplars who identified a given category. Given the sample size, frequency data are not meant to imply a level of precision, nor to detract from the more valuable and descriptive representative quotes. Rather, the frequencies are provided to offer broad information about prevalence and patterns that emerged within the sample itself. They are useful only to complement and enhance the narratives themselves and to point to potential areas of focus in the discussion. Frequency and representative quotes for each theme are provided in

Table 2. Agentic and Receptive Hope Frequencies and Representative Quotes (n = 18).

Theme	Representative Quote	Frequency
Agentic Hope
Benefit of Others	“I want to be a person who helps those who need it… I don’t want to be a person who thinks only about myself, but rather, who thinks about everyone else.”—Alejandra “Well, to help, to be able to help a lot of people, I would work as a doctor.”—Adrian	15
Self	“[I would] like to graduate from high school, and—and God willing, make it to the university and graduate.”—Daniela “[I] hope to become a good chef.”—Carlos	18
God	“I want to be a servant of God.”—Emilia “[I want to] be a missionary and help others so they can know the word of God.”—David	14
Community	“To continue helping people, I would focus more on children, I love children. I also work with children here in the church. Because the children are not at fault for what they go through or what they live through. So, I will focus, when I am older, on helping children, parents, those who really need both God as well as someone there to encourage them.”—Clara “protecting those who might be in risk. And supporting the people who are struggling so they can overcome.”—Adrian	12
Family	“Now I am praying to God because—so that my family can get closer.”—Emilia “Yes, my parents. My biggest dream is to get them ahead. Take them out of where they, where we live for a better life.”—Clara	12
Receptive Hope
Self	“My hope comes out of my heart. It is knowing that I will achieve what I set out to do. I could give everything to that.”—Adrian “Something inside of your heart tells you, keep going and you can, and don’t surrender because if you surrender you have already lost.”—Bianca	18
Caring Relationships	“[The pastor] always talks to me and says, ‘I know that you are going to be able to overcome, I know that you can give more,’ and he has always pushed me a lot and made me give my all.”—David “My tutors, yes, our director—people who help us and motivate us to achieve our dreams.”—Jasmine, when asked who fills her with hope	18
Family Relationships	“[My hope comes] from my parents and God. [My parents] give me encouragement, they tell me that I can do it. And they say, ‘we know that you are going to become someone in your life.’”—Daniela “Yes, more than anything, my parents because I can tell them about my doubts and everything.”—Emiliano	17
God	“Sometimes I say, ‘God give me strength,’ because there are times when I don’t feel like I have the strength to continue, but He has been with me always.—Alejandra “Well, putting myself to pray helps. That encourages me a lot. Knowing that not your whole life will be easy, and that we have to try to make it better to achieve, overcome the obstacle.”—Adrian	14
Youth Development Program Sponsor	“Well, [my sponsor has] influenced my life in many ways, not just financially, but spiritually, because they have taught me something that has shaped my identity: to never give up. In her letters, she always tells me that she is learning something because she wants to become this. And after many days, months, years, she sends me a picture that says “Son, I achieved it.” And that brings me joy and inspires me to say… if a woman of that age can do it, why can’t I?—Benjamin “The best thing that happened to me was when my sponsor helped me, and we were able to buy a grill to make pupusas. That is where my mom… was able to open a pupusa stand and with that income, she was able to help me fund my studies.”—Aaron	5
Peers	“Sometimes I tell my parents or friends, they motivate me and give me strength.”—Carlos “I don’t know, the three of us have faith and we know that it will take time, but someday we will leave [the country].”—David	3
Social Activities	“But in all of that, the orchestra became my refuge. And I loved to go every Monday… and [being in the orchestra] gave me strength. I remember that one time I ripped several strings because I literally poured myself out into the instruments.”—Luis “It was a huge joy to be able to learn something new, to be able to carry the message of God to other people. I visited hospitals where people were prostrate with illness and [was] able to see the, their interest in knowing about God, and be able to receive Him with tearful eyes and accept.”—Clara	3

.

3.1. Agentic Hope: HFE

First, we analyzed the hope segments in order to identify what these youth hoped for. These agentic hopes were those where youth explicitly named a hoped-for end. Although our inductive analysis revealed that these youth hoped for specific things (e.g., food) or accomplishments (e.g., find a job), the question of who these hopes benefited was more salient. Further analysis of the youth’s HFE found that their aspirations were for the benefit of four distinct targets: self, God, community, and family. Though these agentic hope targets also emerged in coding for receptive hope, those results are described separately because receptive hope involves experiencing hope through relational contexts and having hope renewed when lost or discouraged, rather than specific hoped-for-ends.

Fifteen of the 18 youth described wanting to better themselves for the purposes of benefiting others (family, peers) or the community. Though these HFE targeted the adolescent themselves, the larger expressed purpose was beyond-the-self. For example, some youth expressed wanting to pursue a certain profession (e.g., doctor) so they could help the people in their community.

All participants described having HFE that were self-focused. Self-focused HFE included educational goals, hoped-for future careers, aspirations for adulthood, and hopes for character development. Although several of these HFE involved hoped-for future careers (e.g., doctor, worship leader, teacher, etc.), what distinguished them as the other-oriented HFE previously described is that these did not include an identified beyond-the-self benefit. Some self-focused HFE were more character-driven, such as hoping to be a good person for the world.

Fourteen exemplars expressed hopes for God, God’s Kingdom, or their faith. Many of the hopes for God were “sanctified,” meaning they focused on fulfilling God’s purposes (Mahoney et al. 2005; Schnitker et al. 2019). We categorize HFE that are conceptualized as being for God’s purposes as sanctified hopes. Such HFE include hopes for ordinary things (i.e., a job) that are intended for God’s glory as well as hopes that are directly for God and His purposes. The sanctified hopes described by these youth included spreading the gospel, praising God, and viewing oneself as a means through which to fulfill the purposes of God. Ideologically, these hopes appear consistent with beliefs about serving God that are expected in faith-based contexts.

Twelve youth described hope for their communities, which included protecting, helping, and supporting others or their communities as a whole. Some youth focused on helping specific groups in their community such as children, while others had broader hopes for their community at large (e.g., improving safety).

Similar to hopes for the community, 12 youth described hopes for their families. These youth described hopes that were specifically for their parents, siblings, and extended families. For many of these youth, this involved helping their families to live a better life by exiting poverty.

3.2. Receptive Hope

Recognizing the complexity and understudied nature of receptive hope, we began exploring its social embeddedness through deductive coding using Bernardo’s loci of hope (i.e., family, peers, and supernatural or spiritual beings). Next, inductive coding was used to explore and identify other social contexts that appeared to inform hope. Collectively, hope was described as being experienced in seven contexts: self, caring relationships, family, God, youth development program sponsor, peers, and social activities. In certain circumstances, youth describe their experiences with hope in these contexts as past events, while others describe them as current experiences. Accordingly, the categorizations and passages that follow are strictly descriptive, not causal.

All participants described experiencing hope in themselves and empowering their agentic hope through belief in their own abilities. These youth used words like “me,” “my heart,” and “my soul” when asked where their hope came from or what sustained their hope. These expressions of hope reflected agency and confidence in their abilities to reach their hoped-for-ends.

All participants also described the caring relationships they had built as part of their involvement in a religious context as important relational contexts for hope. These youth described experiencing hope through relationships (e.g., with youth development project staff, tutors, directors, and faith leaders) and having their hope sustained or empowered within these relationships. Note that descriptions of caring relationships with family members or peers were not coded here. Access to caring relationships also involved access to material or practical resources. For these youth, experiencing hope within caring relationships offered resources that shaped both their HFE and their beliefs in attainability. For example, through his relationship with a faith leader, David was provided with access to a computer and internet to “watch documentaries about being a marine biologist,” which he described as encouraging his HFE to become a marine biologist. As another example, others described economic support for themselves and their families that served as a tangible experience of hope.

Seventeen of the 18 youth described experiencing hope in and through their family members (parents, siblings, extended family) as well as having family members who renewed their hopes when they felt hopeless. Although some did not identify a specific family member, fifteen exemplars explicitly named their parent(s) as a source of hope. Three youth described experiencing hope in and through their siblings in particular, while extended family members (e.g., grandmother, aunt) were explicitly named by three youth.

Though not the most commonly identified (14 of 18 youth), God, faith, and one’s relationship with God was the most frequently named context, being mentioned over 60 times in the interview transcripts collectively. Youth described experiencing hope in their relationship with God stating that nothing was impossible with God, feeling supported by God, and describing using prayer to build and maintain and hope.

Sixteen of the youth interviewed had sponsors as part of their involvement in the youth development program. Of the 16 youth with sponsors, five described experiencing hope in and through their sponsors due to financial support or relational support (e.g., letters, visits). For example, for some, the financial support offered through sponsorship bolstered and sustained their hope to overcome poverty. For others, their sponsor provided relational support that informed hope such as encouragement and advice.

One of the most infrequently mentioned loci of hope were peers. Three exemplars described hope in or through their relationships with peers. This included feeling motivated or strengthened by peers and receiving advice from peers.

Hope experienced in social activities emerged through inductive coding of interviews. Three youth described learning valuable life lessons such as perseverance and determination that are essential to hope through their engagement in social activities and workshops such as youth worship, sports teams, and missionary trips. Distinct from hope experienced with peers or in caring relationships, these youth described experiencing hope through their engagement in the activities themselves rather than through interactions with peers or adult leaders during the activity.

4. Discussion

In this study, we interviewed a group of thriving youth involved in a faith-based program in El Salvador to explore how their conceptions and experiences of hope may be related to their R/S. We were interested in identifying how being embedded in a religious context might have informed what these youth hoped for and how they described their experiences of hope. We hypothesized that the ideological and relational resources associated with R/S would inform their agentic and receptive aspects of hope. We used deductive and inductive coding to ascertain how the beliefs and the social context available within the program may be particularly salient to agentic and receptive hope.

Approaching agentic hope through identification of youths’ HFE was consistent with and expanded existing literature (e.g., Callina et al. 2017). Although all interviewed youth endorsed anticipated hopes for themselves (e.g., food, getting a job, etc.), which is consistent with the existing literature on HFE, exploring the meanings of the HFE revealed that these youth held specific hopes in order to benefit others. To our knowledge, this beyond-the-self orientation of HFE is a new finding in the literature. For these youth, externally focused HFE centered on three distinct targets: God, community, and family. Descriptions of other-oriented hopes appear to suggest that youth have internalized beliefs about serving others that are common in Christian faith-based contexts. Given that positive contributions toward self, others, and community is an identified outcome of PYD (Lerner et al. 2015), having other-oriented hopes in addition to their self-oriented hopes may suggest that these youth are on a path toward positive development. Beyond-the-self hopes are indicative of the moral and spiritual aspirations that lead to behaviors benefiting others as part of thriving (King and Mangan 2021). Nonetheless, we cannot assess whether HFE for the benefit of others actually led to other-oriented contributory behaviors in the present study.

The most salient HFE-related finding in this sample was the emergence of what we classified as sanctified hopes. Recall that sanctified hopes refer to HFE that are conceptualized as being for God’s purposes. These youth described prioritizing serving God by spreading the gospel and bringing God glory through praise and service. Interviewees who expressed sanctified hopes viewed themselves as a means through which to fulfill what they believed were the purposes of God. Although over 75% of youth expressed HFE for God, God’s kingdom, or their own faith in general, sanctified hopes emerged as a distinct subcategory of HFE for God in that these hopes appeared to be imbued with a beyond-the-self purpose informed by internalization of spiritual beliefs. Not only does the content of religious beliefs inform the developing young person’s cognitions, values, and beliefs about themselves and the world, but also the sacred nature of religious beliefs imbues meaning into the psychological processes (e.g., empathetic concerns, regulatory processes) supporting hope (King et al. 2020a; Schnitker et al. 2019). People regularly imbue seemingly mundane goals with sacred meaning, a process referred to as sanctification. Research demonstrates that in adult populations, sanctified goals are pursued with greater effort, provide higher levels of meaning, and receive greater social support than unsanctified goals (Mahoney et al. 2005). Further research is necessary to explore if sanctified hopes in youth function similarly to these sanctified goals.

Our study is the first qualitative study of receptive hope—an understudied and complex concept. Receptive hope was evident in the various social contexts named by the interviewed youth. Though receptivity approaches to hope conceptualize hope as socially constructed and shaped by context, we are unable to unpack directionality in the present study, but we identify this issue as one for future research. Our aim was to describe youth experiences of hope in a faith-based context. Youth described experiencing hope in seven different contexts: self, caring adult relationships, family, God, youth development sponsor, social activities, and peers. Adolescents described experiencing hope through relationships in ways that renewed their hope when they felt hopeless (e.g., words of encouragement, validation), provided practical and material support (e.g., access to vocational development opportunities), and modeled hoping behaviors (e.g., prayer, asking for help). Experiencing hope in God was the most frequently mentioned by interviewed youth, mentioned over 60 times collectively. This finding suggests that for these youth, hope was greatly informed by their relationship with and beliefs about God, and when their hope was wavering, their relationship with God appeared to sustain hope. The contexts that emerged suggest that although R/S do not have exclusive influences on hope, involvement in this religious context does offer access to relationships and beliefs that inform adolescents’ experience of hope.

Limitations and Future Directions

Given that our analysis was based on data gathered from thriving exemplars in El Salvador who participated in faith-based positive youth development programs run by CI, the generalizability of our findings is limited. Nonetheless, efforts to understand hope in religious contexts and receptive hope in particular warranted use of this very unique sample. The cross-sectional nature of our data and small sample size prevent causal claims about the development of hope. Instead, our results provide nuanced descriptions of youth hopes and experiences of hope that offer insights into the role of relationships and R/S in hope. Although the findings suggest that religious contexts may nurture hope, longitudinal research is warranted to attempt to ascertain modes of causality. In addition, given the mean age of the sample, we note that the beliefs that inform hope may or may not be stable and enduring. They may reflect the internalization of conventional beliefs of their social surroundings (e.g., family, youth CI program; Fowler 1981) that may reflect foreclosed identity or beliefs (Marcia 1980). Only time will tell if their beliefs in God will continue to inform beyond-the-self hopes and motivation to act consistently with these beliefs. For now, we recognize for this exemplary group of youth that these narratives suggested coherency between R/S and their hoped-for ends. Completing a follow-up study with these youth would clarify the relative stability of HFE as well as the influence of identified relationships in this sample over time.

Another noteworthy limitation involves the interviews with Salvadoran adolescents being completed by American researchers. Despite our effort to offset this limitation by completing the interview using simultaneous interpretation and having the interview protocol translated by local translators, being interviewed by individuals who were not local or Salvadoran may have affected the participants’ responses.

5. Conclusions

Despite the limitations of this study, findings offer important implications for future research. The present study suggested that youth understand their hope in ways that support youth agency and encourage contribution to the greater good, an understanding seemingly shaped by their religious context. Longitudinal research is necessary to determine if these HFE actually motivate and direct prosocial contributions to the family, community, and God. Additional research that studies the role of context (e.g., relationships and ideology) across time in building and maintaining hope would likewise be helpful in unpacking the relation between hope and R/S. Furthermore, our sample was homogeneous, further research is warranted to elucidate how transcendent worldviews, whether connected to a theistic or nontheistic religious tradition or otherwise, may inform how youth conceive of and experience hope. Research that further explores the efficacy of sanctified hope in comparison to other conceptualizations of hope in various circumstances (e.g., daily life vs. adversity) would shed further light on how R/S and hope may co-act to promote PYD.

The aim of this research was to describe the nuanced relation between hope and R/S through the narratives of a group of thriving Salvadoran adolescents embedded in an ideologically- and relationally-rich religious context. Namely, we sought to gain insight into how conceptions and experiences of hope were informed by R/S in a group of adolescents nominated as being hopeful and committed to their faith within an LMIC. Our study sought to describe links and complexities in how hope is related to R/S in order to deepen our understanding of the meaning of hope for youth. A more nuanced understanding of hope allows for further research on the functions of hope and provides insights for youth development programs seeking to promote positive youth development in LMICs.

Expanding the youth development literature that focuses on agentic hope, we identified that these youth named aspirations that were largely for the benefit of others (e.g., community, family). Further, reflecting beliefs prominent in their religious context, several hopeful future expectations were sanctified, meaning they focused on fulfilling what they viewed as God’s purpose(s) for their lives. If these other-oriented hopes are associated with positive contributions towards youths’ friends, families, and communities at large, this finding could suggest that hope experienced within R/S contexts places youth on a path toward positive development.

As one of the first studies of receptive hope, we found evidence of the relational embeddedness of hope, with youth describing hope as experienced in six distinct social contexts. While youth did experience hope within themselves, every interviewed participant described their experience of hope as extending beyond the self (e.g., in caring adults, God, family, etc.) with experiencing hope in God being most frequently mentioned. Though R/S are by no means the only contexts important to hope, involvement in faith-based contexts and commitment to one’s faith appear to offer beliefs and relationships that inform and sustain hope. Such information offers support for the continued collaboration between youth local development programs and congregations.