View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Metachangemaking: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Research on Cultivating Changemakers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Metachangemaking: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Research on Cultivating Changemakers
Language: English
Authors: Brandon M. Reynante (ORCID 0000-0001-5776-6654), John E. Wilcox, Oliver L. Stephenson, Falk Lieder, Chris Lacopo
Source: Journal of Moral Education. 2025 54(4):684-709.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Change Agents, Motivation, Competence, Social Change, Teaching Methods, Educational Methods
DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2024.2342274
ISSN: 0305-7240
1465-3877
Abstract: "Metachangemaking" refers to the cultivation of changemakers--people with the motivation and competence to tackle societal issues and promote collective wellbeing. It is not entirely clear how to effectively cultivate changemakers, and relevant research spans many disparate fields. The goals of this article are to introduce the concept of metachangemaking, synthesize and evaluate some relevant literature which may be less familiar to particular audiences, and identify open questions for future research. We identified a number of themes, including changemaker motivations and competencies, approaches to cultivating such motivations and competencies, and opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems. There are many important outstanding questions that suggest directions for future research, such as the efficacy of various approaches to cultivating changemaker motivations and competencies in particular circumstances. There is a need for evidence-based theoretical frameworks of metachangemaking, and for studies that address issues of replicability, causality, and transferability to various changemaking contexts.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1505446
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEzYO0g81HMy2nkYvCZ2YYKAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDS-KkVhEwEH8eImKAIBEICBm_51WJ0Qv3AE5khf9NC2I5zuguViGNH_59t35NjcXvf0R5GDtoPKgAOCgHrF7RSOcWjCoLe2hBLo7sCBXFUNC6_6rK7LWBxqonyuSNCOvjpUfx3pif6dgqyIIuz4VzbTCtUIOl0HacoKzpFVjV61lz8IiMysirFwc-H5hpPoiUl9idjgwCJchUv8Lad5dnKwKyC9TN4iZ8fpvKsH
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189411031;moe01dec.25;2025Nov21.04:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189411031-1">Metachangemaking: An interdisciplinary synthesis of research on cultivating changemakers </title> <p>Metachangemaking refers to the cultivation of changemakers—people with the motivation and competence to tackle societal issues and promote collective wellbeing. It is not entirely clear how to effectively cultivate changemakers, and relevant research spans many disparate fields. The goals of this article are to introduce the concept of metachangemaking, synthesize and evaluate some relevant literature which may be less familiar to particular audiences, and identify open questions for future research. We identified a number of themes, including changemaker motivations and competencies, approaches to cultivating such motivations and competencies, and opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems. There are many important outstanding questions that suggest directions for future research, such as the efficacy of various approaches to cultivating changemaker motivations and competencies in particular circumstances. There is a need for evidence-based theoretical frameworks of metachangemaking, and for studies that address issues of replicability, causality, and transferability to various changemaking contexts.</p> <p>Keywords: Prosocial behavior; changemaker education; moral development; moral psychology; collective action</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>The complexity, urgency, pervasiveness, and persistence of many societal problems (e.g., climate disruption, pandemic risks, social inequity) suggests the need for vastly more people to contribute toward tackling these issues. <emph>Metachangemaking</emph> refers to the systematic cultivation of changemakers—people with the motivation and competence to create positive societal change. We consider changemaking to be an altruistic behavior—a subtype of prosocial behavior that is defined as voluntary behavior intended to benefit another, but not necessarily with an expectation of external rewards or punishments (Pfattheicher et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref1">98</reflink>]). We use the term 'societal change' as distinct from social change, since social change often refers to interpersonal or inter-group change (Howarth et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref2">52</reflink>]), whereas societal change refers to a wider class of changes in a society, including changes in its material wellbeing and the transformation of the institutions and culture of a society over time (Giddens et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]). We use the term 'positive change' but recognize that whether a change is viewed as positive or negative will depend to some extent on one's particular perspective. Those disadvantaged by the status quo may view change as positive, while those advantaged by the status quo may view change as negative. Furthermore, some aspirations of positive societal change have had (unintended) negative consequences (Merton, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref4">80</reflink>]). We thus define positive change as that which contributes to individual and collective wellbeing—although we leave it as a somewhat open question as to what specific changes contribute to wellbeing as such.</p> <p>One historically important metachangemaking program was the Highlander Folk School, attended by leaders in the U.S. civil rights movement, including John Lewis (Horton, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref5">51</reflink>]). Other metachangemaking programs include FUNDAEC's (The Foundation for the Application and Teaching of the Sciences) efforts throughout Latin America to foster within individuals both the desire and the capacity to contribute to the wellbeing of their communities (Arbab et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]) and the Ashoka Foundation's promotion of changemaker education across the globe (Fuessel, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref7">40</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref8">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Metachangemaking is important because it represents an approach to addressing <emph>vastly many</emph> societal problems by systematically cultivating <emph>many</emph> problem-solvers, so to speak.</p> <p>However, it is not entirely clear how to go about effectively cultivating changemakers. There is a vast academic literature that is relevant to metachangemaking, one which spans many fields and disciplines that are in some cases rarely in conversation with each other, such as education, history, philosophy, psychology, political science, and sociology. This article represents a first attempt to map out and synthesize diverse bodies of knowledge about metachangemaking and to outline an agenda for future research directions. Specifically, we sought to address the following research question: What are different possible ways to cultivate changemakers? We present some perspectives on this and related questions that emerge from the literature, although we aim to neither endorse nor reject any of those perspectives here.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-3">2. Methodology</hd> <p>The literature synthesis was carried out by The Metachangemakers Project—an interdisciplinary research team originating from Stanford University—and its collaborators. Relevant literature was identified using informal and unstructured methods. Team members built upon their own prior knowledge, browsed databases (e.g., Google Scholar and university library resources) using relevant search terms (e.g., altruistic behavior, prosocial behavior, social change, social innovation, social movements), and asked colleagues (e.g., psychology faculty members). To ensure a broad scope, literature was sought across a wide variety of fields (e.g., education, history, philosophy, psychology, political science, sociology), types (e.g., peer-reviewed academic articles, books, technical reports), and dates (both recently published and older literature). Selection criteria included relevance, importance, and credibility. There were no purely objective measures associated with these criteria, but rather inclusion decisions were based on the judgment of the members. The selection of the entries was therefore affected by the background knowledge, experiences, and interests of the members.</p> <p>For that reason, this literature synthesis is not exhaustive, nor does any omission from it represent an opinion that the omitted entries are not valuable or important. That said, we do not think the lack of exhaustivity is problematic. This is because our aim is not to make, for example, generalizable claims about what the evidence supports (which would require a degree of exhaustivity). Instead, the purpose is to identify a selection of perspectives and questions without controversially taking stances on the topics they pertain to (which does not require exhaustivity).</p> <p>The quality of the selected literature was evaluated using Scite.ai (Nicholson et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref9">87</reflink>]), an artificial intelligence (AI) platform that provides information about whether there is any supporting or contradicting evidence for cited claims in research articles. Two criteria were used to judge articles: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>) the ratio between the number of contradicting articles to the number of supporting articles (contradict/support ratio); and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>) the total number of supporting citations. Articles with a contradict/support ratio less than 5% and at least 30 supporting citations were classified as having strong support. Articles with a contradict/support ratio less than 10% and at least 15 supporting citations were classified as having good support. Articles with a contradict/support ratio less than 20% and at least 5 supporting articles were classified as having moderate support. Any articles with a contradict/support ratio greater than 20% were disregarded.</p> <p>To extract potential insights from the literature, each piece was read by one of the team members. That member then constructed a short description that summarized the piece and its relevance to metachangemaking. To ensure accuracy, members engaged in a cross-checking process whereby each member would have another member (i.e., a cross-checker) examine a subset of the literature without perusing the original member's annotations beforehand to reduce risk of bias. The cross-checker then independently produced their own new annotation about the literature, and then evaluated how well the old annotation fared against the desiderata. Whenever there were inconsistencies in the two independently crafted summaries, the corresponding member and cross-checker engaged in dialogue to revise the annotation until agreement was obtained. Some members provided annotations for their own work. These annotations were not included in the cross-checking process because it was assumed that these members would accurately describe the content of their own work, bearing in mind that such descriptions were purely factual (e.g., 'the authors claim that ... ') and omitted controversial evaluations (e.g., whether the content was correct, novel, important and the like).</p> <p>We used an inductive thematic analysis approach (Miles & Huberman, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref12">81</reflink>]) to identify themes from the annotations. The analysis involved an iterative process of grouping seemingly related portions of the various annotations and devising a name and description to capture the theme. To synthesize the evidence, we used a narrative approach, which involves presenting the results in a narrative format (Cook, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref13">31</reflink>]) and which is useful when attempting to integrate many studies that use diverse methods and that are not, for example, susceptible to quantitative meta-analyses of homogenous constructs (Baumeister & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-4">3. Results</hd> <p>Based on our synthesis of the literature, we describe some putative insights and open questions that remain to be answered regarding metachangemaking. We classify our findings into several categories corresponding to the themes that we identified: changemaker motivations, cultivating changemaker motivations, changemaker competencies, cultivating changemaker competencies, and opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-5">3.1. Changemaker motivations</hd> <p>As stated previously, we define changemaking as an altruistic behavior, which is a subtype of prosocial behavior and which includes both individual and collective action. Many influential theoretical models have been developed to understand the antecedents of prosocial behaviors. This is relevant to metachangemaking because in order to cultivate effective changemakers it is important to understand the factors that potentially motivate prosocial behavior.</p> <p>Various psychological theories have been proposed to understand individual prosocial action. Some models assume that behavior is motivated by rationality. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) suggests that behavior is preceded by behavioral intention, which is a function of attitudes toward the behavior and perceived social norms regarding the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]). This model was later extended into the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which adds another causal factor: perceived behavioral control—the extent to which the individual perceives the behavior to be under their personal control (Ajzen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]). Although these specific theories are not concerned exclusively with prosocial behavior, they nevertheless identify potential influences of such behavior.</p> <p>Other psychological models assume that individual prosocial behavior is motivated by morality. Norm-Activation Theory (NAT) posits that altruistic behavior results when a person becomes aware of other people's suffering and has personal norms (i.e., a feeling of moral obligation) to alleviate this suffering (Schwartz, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref17">109</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref18">110</reflink>]). Building on this model, Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory claims that altruistic behaviors are preceded by a causal chain of personal values (e.g., altruism), three types of beliefs (worldview, perception of adverse consequences for things that one values, and perceived ability to reduce the threat), and personal norms (Stern et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref19">119</reflink>]).</p> <p>Psychological models have also been proposed to understand collective prosocial behavior, such as Relative Deprivation Theory (Crosby, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>]; Runciman, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref21">107</reflink>]) and Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref22">123</reflink>]). These theories were integrated into the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), which proposes that group identity (i.e., psychological ties to a particular group), felt or perceived group-based injustice, and group efficacy beliefs (i.e., belief that group action will be effective) are unique, positive predictors of engagement in collective action (van Zomeren et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref23">133</reflink>]). SIMCA was later expanded to include moral motivations—that is, motivation to protect one's moral beliefs (van Zomeren et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref24">132</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several sociological models have also been proposed to explain collective prosocial behavior. For example, Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) emphasizes the role of resources (e.g., time, money, social support) and political opportunities as key factors in social mobilization (McCarthy & Zald, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref25">78</reflink>]). According to this perspective, collective prosocial behavior is based on a rational choice between costs and benefits for the group in general.</p> <p>Some scholars have advocated for expanding beyond each of these theories toward more integrative models that incorporate multiple kinds of variables (e.g., attitudinal and contextual) (Kollmuss & Agyeman, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref26">64</reflink>]; Stern, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref27">118</reflink>]). For example, the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior (MREB) is based on a meta-analysis of 128 pro-environmental behavior studies and specifies key variables such as pro-environmental attitudes, sense of responsibility, and situational factors (Hines et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref28">49</reflink>]). The Attitude-Behavior-Context (ABC) model posits that behavior is a product of attitudinal variables, such as beliefs and values, and contextual factors, such as social regulations (Stern, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref29">118</reflink>]).</p> <p>Much of the empirical support for these models is based on simple regression analysis (Oreg & Katz-Gerro, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref30">92</reflink>]; van Zomeren et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref31">132</reflink>]). However, where causal path models are hypothesized, some scholars argue that some form of path analysis, such as structural equation modeling (SEM), is required (Oreg & Katz-Gerro, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref32">92</reflink>]). An SEM meta-analysis of 109 pro-environmental behavior studies reported strong evidence for the TRA, TPB, and ABC models, but weak evidence for NAT and VBN theory (Okumah et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref33">90</reflink>]). Another SEM meta-analysis examining pro-environmental behavior across 56 data sets reported support for a model that integrated the TPB and VBN theory (Klöckner, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref34">62</reflink>]). Support for the SIMCA was reported based on an SEM meta-analysis of 403 collective action studies (Agostini & van Zomeren, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>While these models might have demonstrated validity in certain circumstances, some scholars, such as Kollmuss and Agyeman ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref36">64</reflink>]), claim that many of them have limitations. First, each theory has different assumptions regarding the underlying motivations for prosocial behavior: the TRA and TPB focus on rationality, NAT and VBN theory emphasize altruism, and the SIMCA emphasizes identity, injustice, efficacy, and morality. Second, some of the hypothesized associations have been reported to be weak. Third, most of the theories, even the integrative models, may be missing key variables.</p> <p>Despite the limitations of these theories, they potentially provide insight into the key factors that may affect motivations to be a changemaker. We categorize these variables into internal and external factors. Internal factors are social-psychological variables (see Table 1). External variables concern economic, institutional, political, and socio-cultural factors. Economic factors include time availability and financial resources, costs, and incentives (Blake, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]; McCarthy & Zald, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref38">78</reflink>]; Stern, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref39">118</reflink>]). Institutional factors include available infrastructure, technology, and organizational structures (Kollmuss & Agyeman, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]; McCarthy & Zald, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref41">78</reflink>]; Stern, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref42">118</reflink>]). Political factors include policies and power relations (McAdam, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref43">76</reflink>]; Stern, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref44">118</reflink>]). Social and cultural factors include cultural norms, social regulations, and social support (Kollmuss & Agyeman, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref45">64</reflink>]; McCarthy & Zald, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref46">78</reflink>]; Stern, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref47">118</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Social-psychological factors reported to be correlated with prosocial behaviors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Factor</td><td>Description</td><td>Reported Correlation</td><td>Select References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Attitude</td><td>A relatively stable feeling about a pro-social/-environmental behavior</td><td>0.21</td><td>(Okumah et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Belief</td><td>A pro-social/-environmental life philosophy or moral conviction</td><td>0.22–0.40</td><td>(Agostini & van Zomeren, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>; Stern et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">1999</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Efficacy</td><td>Perceived ability to achieve a prosocial or collective action goal</td><td>0.28–0.37</td><td>(Agostini & van Zomeren, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>; Okumah et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion</td><td>Feelings of injustice</td><td>0.39</td><td>(Agostini & van Zomeren, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Identity</td><td>Degree to which morality or group membership is important to identity</td><td>0.22–0.40</td><td>(Agostini & van Zomeren, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Intention</td><td>Readiness to perform a pro-social/-environmental behavior</td><td>0.23</td><td>(Okumah et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived adversity</td><td>Perception of risk, suffering, or injustice to self, others, or nature</td><td>0.13–0.33</td><td>(Agostini & van Zomeren, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>; Stern et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">1999</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived social norm</td><td>Perception about what behaviors are considered typical or appropriate in a given situation</td><td>0.21</td><td>(Okumah et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Personal (moral) norm</td><td>Sense of moral obligation or responsibility to take action</td><td>0.48</td><td>(Bekkers & Wiepking, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2011</xref>; Stern et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">1999</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Personality trait</td><td>A relatively stable pattern of behavior</td><td>0.26</td><td>(Thielmann et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Value</td><td>Guiding principle in the life of a person</td><td>0.17</td><td>(Bekkers & Wiepking, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2011</xref>; Stern et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">1999</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Any attempt to cultivate changemakers would ideally pay due regard to both the internal and external variables. However, some scholars have argued that external factors are ethically trivial and that focusing on internal factors may be more practical for moral improvement (Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref48">125</reflink>]). Additionally, other scholars claim there is little knowledge of the precise role, interdependence, and relative influences of the different factors (Gifford & Nilsson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]; Shove, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref50">113</reflink>]). Thus, an open question is: <emph>What is the relative importance of the various internal and external motivational variables and the potential interactions between them in different contexts?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0189411031-6">3.2. Cultivating changemaker motivations</hd> <p>As we discussed in the previous section, prosocial behavior may be motivated in several ways. Oliner and Oliner ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref51">91</reflink>]), for example, report that the rescuers of Jewish people in Nazi Europe had various motivations: some were motivated by principles of justice, others by empathy for the Jewish people, and others by allegiance to a social group (such as their family) who would disapprove of their failing to help the Jewish people. Strategies for cultivating such changemaker motivations have been developed based on targeting the antecedent social-psychological variables described in the previous section. Some of these approaches are provided in Table 2, along with example interventions aligned with each approach and effect sizes (although other information, such as contexts and procedures, are also important but nevertheless omitted for sake of space).</p> <p>Table 2. Some approaches to cultivating changemaker motivations suggested in the literature.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Approach</td><td>Example Intervention</td><td>Reported Effect Size</td><td>Select References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Character and moral education</td><td>Help people acquire a set of beliefs and values about what is right and wrong and cultivate the disposition to act accordingly through instruction or reflection</td><td>0.24</td><td>(M. Brown et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2023</xref>; Lamb et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Exemplar exposure</td><td>Expose people to inspiring exemplars and role models of altruism</td><td>0.22</td><td>(Han et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Happiness- altruism</td><td>Encourage people to do something altruistic and ask them to reflect on how it contributes to their happiness</td><td>0.28</td><td>(Aknin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2013</xref>; Curry et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Empathy training</td><td>Cultivate the ability to accurately understand other people's experiences and perspectives (empathy)</td><td>0.51</td><td>(Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr126">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Compassion training</td><td>Cultivate a habitual desire to alleviate others' suffering (compassion)</td><td>0.55</td><td>(Kirby et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Identity- intervention</td><td>Encourage people to engage in prosocial action and consider the extent to which they identify as changemakers</td><td>0.34</td><td>(Jay et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2023</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Fostering purpose</td><td>Help people choose an overarching socially beneficial and personally meaningful long-term goal (life purpose)</td><td>0.30</td><td>(Bronk et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2019</xref>; Damon, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2009</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Norm- nudging</td><td>Communicate "normative" information intended to change beliefs about group norms</td><td>0.60</td><td>(Hummel & Maedche, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2019</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Personality- intervention</td><td>Provide people with feedback about their personality traits to instill desires to change for the better</td><td>0.56</td><td>(Thielmann & de Vries, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr127">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Values affirmation</td><td>Encourage people to reflect on personally important values</td><td>0.37</td><td>(Schneider & Weber, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108">2022</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Character and moral education help people develop a set of beliefs and values through pedagogical methods (Halstead, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref52">46</reflink>]; Lamb et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref53">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref54">65</reflink>]), such as guided reflection and the discussion of moral exemplars (Zagzebski, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref55">142</reflink>]) and moral dilemmas (Lind, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref56">69</reflink>]). According to Lamb et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref57">65</reflink>]), the seven methods of character education are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) habituation through practice; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>) reflection on personal experience; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>) engagement with virtuous exemplars; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>) discussions of particular virtues and how they can be practiced; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>) awareness of situational variables; (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>) moral reminders; and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>) friendships of mutual accountability. A recent meta-analysis of 214 character education studies comparing a character education program to a control group reported a small, positive average effect (g = 0.24) across a variety of character-related outcomes (M. Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref65">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The exemplar exposure approach targets self efficacy and personal moral norms by exposing people to inspiring moral and civic role models whose stories may in turn motivate them to be altruistic (Colby & Damon, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]). Supporters of this approach suggest that showing people the processes and success of role models can foster a sense of competence (Chawla & Cushing, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]), and that lessons from these exemplars can help people learn moral truths and encourage moral commitment (Damon, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]; Damon & Colby, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref69">36</reflink>]). One experimental study reported that stories of attainable exemplars (e.g., peers) more effectively promoted voluntary service activity engagement among undergraduate students compared with stories of unattainable exemplars or non-moral stories (effect size = 0.22) (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref70">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>The happiness-altruism approach targets the emotional mechanisms of prosocial behavior by exploiting what we call the <emph>happiness-altruism connection</emph>. A substantial body of evidence reports that humans across cultures can experience higher degrees of happiness or subjective well-being when they engage in acts of kindness or altruism towards others (Aknin et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>]; Hui et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref72">53</reflink>]). Recent experimental research reports that acting prosocially led to greater increases in positive affect than trying to make oneself happy (Titova & Sheldon, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref73">129</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 27 experimental studies on the happiness-altruism connection reported a small-to-moderate overall effect (d = 0.28) of kindness interventions on subjective well-being (Curry et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref74">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>An approach that targets both emotions and perceived adverse consequences for others is empathy training, which leverages the link between empathy and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref75">37</reflink>]) by strengthening people's ability to cognitively and emotionally understand other people's suffering (Lam et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref76">66</reflink>]). Scholars who support the empathy-building approach argue that people are naturally altruistic (Piliavin & Charng, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref77">100</reflink>]), and that this can be built upon through specific empathy-building exercises with support from others, such as parents, teachers, and peers (Damon, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref78">34</reflink>]; Zaki, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref79">143</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials reported that empathy training programs have a medium effect (g = 0.63) on empathy (Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref80">126</reflink>]).</p> <p>Compassion training similarly targets both emotions and perceived adverse consequences for others by enhancing people's desire for other people to feel happy, safe, and loved (Hofmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref81">50</reflink>]). For example, several studies report that loving kindness meditation—which directs people to repeatedly think compassionate thoughts and gradually expand the scope of their compassion from their loved ones to all sentient beings—increases various aspects of prosocial behavior (Condon et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref82">30</reflink>]; Hutcherson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref83">55</reflink>]; Leiberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref84">68</reflink>]; Weng et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref85">137</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled trials reported that compassion training yielded a moderate overall effect (d = 0.55) on self-report measures of compassion (Kirby et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref86">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>The identity-intervention approach involves fostering moral or social identity by encouraging people to take prosocial action, engage in intergroup interaction, and reflect on the extent to which they identify as altruists or activists (Matsuba et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref87">75</reflink>]; Williams & Chawla, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref88">140</reflink>]). Matsuba et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref89">75</reflink>]) suggest that moral identity development requires opportunities to explore and experience one's moral self through actions, and that integration of moral values with self involves many external influences (e.g., family, culture) and psychological processes (e.g., reflection). A study of 47 participants who completed a 2-week educational program that aimed to increase critical awareness and collective empowerment of labor movement activists reported an increase in activist identity with an effect size of 0.34 (Jay et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref90">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another class of interventions targets intentions by helping people choose a prosocial life purpose (Bronk, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref91">20</reflink>]). Purpose is defined as a sustained intention to accomplish something that is meaningful to the self and consequential to the world beyond the self (Damon, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref92">34</reflink>]). Some scholars posit that people are more likely to develop a life purpose when they observe respected people pursue a purpose (Damon, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref93">34</reflink>]), have the opportunity to address their concerns about the world, are supported in their pursuit of such opportunities (Moran et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref94">83</reflink>]), and reflect on their future in light of that experience (Malin et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref95">74</reflink>]). One study reported that prompting people to reflect on how they want to be remembered at their funeral made them more likely to set a goal to contribute more to their community (M. Prentice et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref96">102</reflink>]). An experimental study of 224 participants who used an online toolkit designed to foster purpose through goal setting and values exploration reported an effect size of 0.30 (Bronk et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref97">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>The norm-nudging approach encourages prosocial behavior by communicating information that is intended to change an individual's beliefs about group norms (Bicchieri & Dimant, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]; D. Prentice & Paluck, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref99">101</reflink>]). However, Bicchieri and Dimant ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref100">17</reflink>]) caution that nudges can fail or backfire if improperly designed. For example, studies examining pro-environmental behavior interventions have reported that effective nudges are often those that emphasize injunctive norms (what people usually approve) rather than descriptive norms (what people typically do) (Kallgren et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref101">59</reflink>]). Some scholars suggest that highlighting the fact that many people engage in socially harmful behavior may cause that behavior to appear normal and acceptable (Bicchieri & Dimant, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref102">17</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 19 studies of pro-environmental nudging reported an average effect size of 0.60 across a variety of pro-environmental behaviors (Hummel & Maedche, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref103">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>The personality-intervention approach builds on people's putative tendency to see themselves in an overly favorable way—a bias that is particularly pervasive in the prosocial/moral domain and that is often referred to as <emph>moral self-enhancement</emph> (Alicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref104">6</reflink>]; Tappin & McKay, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref105">124</reflink>]). Despite a commonly held assumption that personality traits are immutable or change only very gradually over the course of years, a recent review suggests that personality traits can be substantially altered in a short timespan (e.g., on the order of months) through interventions (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref106">106</reflink>]). A recent randomized controlled trial of 603 participants reported that tailored feedback about personality traits—where individuals receive information about their relative standing in comparison to a relevant reference group—had medium effects on the desire to change their honesty-humility (d = 0.56) and agreeableness (d = 0.57) traits in a socially desirable way (Thielmann & de Vries, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref107">127</reflink>]).</p> <p>The values affirmation approach targets values by encouraging people to reflect on important personal values, which may allow them to establish prosocial goals and behaviors (Schneider & Weber, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref108">108</reflink>]). Previous studies have reported that values affirmation can improve students' academic motivation with long-term effects, even up to nine years later (Hecht et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref109">48</reflink>]). A recent randomized controlled trial of 482 participants reported that value affirmations increased prosocial behavior intentions with an effect size of 0.37 (Schneider & Weber, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref110">108</reflink>]).</p> <p>Various motivation approaches might be combined to target multiple antecedent variables. For example, Baumsteiger ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref111">15</reflink>]) developed an 11-day intervention that was grounded in character and moral education and included an elevating video (exemplar-exposure), an identity writing activity (identity-intervention), a values identification writing activity (values affirmation), imagining and writing about how they hope to make a positive impact on the world 5 years in the future (fostering prosocial life purpose), creating a plan for how they could help other people each day for the next 10 days, and performing daily prosocial behaviors each day for 10 days and reflecting on how it made them feel (happiness-altruism connection) and how it impacted others (empathy training). A randomized controlled trial of 116 high school and college students reported positive effects (Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) across a variety of prosocial behavior antecedents, including concern for others (<emph>d</emph> = 0.57), prosocial efficacy (<emph>d</emph> = 0.56), social responsibility (<emph>d</emph> = 0.49), prosocial intentions (<emph>d</emph> = 0.41), and prosocial identity (<emph>d</emph> = 0.35), as well as actual prosocial behavior (<emph>d</emph> = 0.53).</p> <p>While our definition of changemaking focuses on prosocial behavior driven by altruistic motivations—that is, motivations that have the wellbeing of others as a central aim (Pfattheicher et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref112">98</reflink>])—we acknowledge that altruistic motivations may not always produce prosocial behavior (Batson & Powell, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]) nor be entirely selfless. For example, altruistic behaviors may benefit the self through enhancing one's reputation (Simpson & Willer, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref114">114</reflink>]) or increasing one's happiness (Curry et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref115">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, some research suggests particular altruistic motivations can be diminished or eliminated given particular changes in circumstances (Staub, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref116">117</reflink>]). For example, the happiness-altruism approach might fail in cases where altruism results in substantial sacrifices to one's happiness, although it may succeed in circumstances where altruism is not prevalent in one's social group but nevertheless induces more happiness overall. Conversely, the social norms approach may motivate individuals even in cases where altruism requires costly sacrifices to one's happiness but is nevertheless the norm in one's social group. Thus, an open question remains: <emph>Which approaches are best for motivating changemakers in different circumstances?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0189411031-7">3.3. Changemaker competencies</hd> <p>Arguably, even if an individual has the motivation to create positive societal change, they often will not successfully do so unless they have particular competencies—that is, skills or dispositions that can make one an effective changemaker. There are many distinct ways by which a person may seek to create positive societal change, such as civic engagement (e.g., petitioning, voting) (Stern et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref117">119</reflink>]), social movement activism (e.g., protesting) (Morris & Mueller, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref118">84</reflink>]), and social innovation (e.g., creating or improving processes, products, services, and technologies) (Mulgan, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref119">85</reflink>]). Different change strategies may require different competencies.</p> <p>Sociologists often define at least two (not necessarily exhaustive) basic theories of societal change—functionalist theory and conflict theory (Macionis et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref120">73</reflink>]). Functionalist theory emphasizes societal change as a relatively gradual process of cooperative action that results from things like technological advances and the accumulation of individual behaviors (e.g., residential recycling). Conversely, conflict theory emphasizes societal change as a relatively sudden event that requires conflict between groups as a result of tensions within the structure of the social system itself (e.g., political organizing for environmental justice). These two potential pathways to change differ along various dimensions, such as incremental versus transformational, cooperative versus confrontational, and top down versus bottom up. We describe these dimensions below.</p> <p>One dimension concerns the incremental versus transformational nature of the changemaking strategy. Some scholars have suggested that strategies to create societal change should move forward in small, opportunistic steps, rather than tackle the entire problem all at once (Lindblom, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref121">70</reflink>]; Weick, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref122">135</reflink>]). These scholars argue that major societal problems are often so complex and involve so many strong contrasting viewpoints that large changes may be impossible to tackle in a comprehensive manner, leading to stalemate or extreme compromise and feelings of helplessness. Small steps are more tractable, are less likely to face opposition, and may provide momentum for achieving future steps. Lindblom ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref123">70</reflink>]) offers the example of the continuing agreement in the United States Congress on the desirability of extending old age insurance. This insurance aligns with liberal desires to strengthen the welfare programs of the federal government, and with conservative desires to reduce union demands for private pension plans. Lindblom claims this demonstrates how individuals of different ideologies can agree on a concrete policy that represents a small step towards each group's ultimate (yet conflicting) aims. Weick ([<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref124">135</reflink>]) offers the example of the first administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1970s, who laid aside his mandate to clean up all aspects of the environment and instead focused on bringing water pollution lawsuits against just a few cities, which led to quick noticeable progress and laid the stage for a long series of successes.</p> <p>Other scholars have criticized the incremental approach, which they think involves change <emph>within</emph> an existing system. They claim that it simply addresses the symptoms of a problem rather than addressing the underlying root causes, which preserves the system and allows the problems to resurface (Meadows, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref125">79</reflink>]; Reich, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref126">105</reflink>]; Stoecker, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref127">120</reflink>]; Weil, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref128">136</reflink>]). Transformational change, in contrast, involves changing the underlying paradigm and structure of the system itself—that is, changing the perceived ideological foundations and social structures of politics, economy, and society (Meadows, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref129">79</reflink>]; Reich, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref130">105</reflink>]; Weil, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref131">136</reflink>]).</p> <p>A second dimension concerns the roles of confrontation versus collaboration. Various historical case studies present examples of more or less confrontational tactics adopted by changemakers, from backroom negotiations to boycotts, strikes, and armed self-defense. Saul Alinsky, a community organizer in major American cities for many decades, advocated for a confrontational approach (Alinsky, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref132">7</reflink>]). One review of hundreds of social movement campaigns over the last century argued that non-violent civil disobedience (a somewhat confrontational approach) is by far the most powerful way to affect public policy (Chenoweth & Stephan, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref133">28</reflink>]). McAlevey ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref134">77</reflink>]) studied the turn towards less confrontational <emph>business unionism</emph> by American unions, whereby union leadership favored negotiations with company bosses rather than coordinated action by union members, and argued that, while this has led to limited, short-term gains for some American union members, the results have been overall negative for American workers as a whole.</p> <p>Other scholars have argued that confrontational approaches are largely ineffectual. Payne ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref135">96</reflink>]) presented examples of confrontational movements being weakened by internal conflicts over worldviews and tactics, in particular during times of rapid growth of the movements. White ([<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref136">138</reflink>]) uses Occupy Wall Street (a social movement he co-created) as a case study to support his argument that activist protest strategies that were successful in the late 20th century have now become ineffective. A review of hundreds of case studies about changemaking claimed that confrontational strategies engendered a fractious 'us versus them' atmosphere that was counterproductive, whereas collaborative strategies that focused on creating solutions to benefit all stakeholders were more successful (Sherman, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref137">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>A third dimension concerns top-down versus bottom-up change. Top-down change is instantiated by powerful political actors, such as governments, or by 'expert' organizers who train their own staff and send them into impacted communities (Alinsky, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref138">7</reflink>]). Advocates argue that this approach is effective for achieving change at large scale (Stachowiak, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref139">116</reflink>]). Outsiders can also bring in resources and skills not already present within a community, thus offering potential advantages. For example, the influx of northern and white students into the southern United States during the 1960s civil rights movements helped bring more national attention and resources to the struggle against white supremacy (Payne, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref140">96</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other scholars argue that if those affected by a problem do not have a say in how it is resolved, then top-down approaches can reinforce unequal power relations between privileged political leaders and disadvantaged 'beneficiaries' who may feel distrustful and disempowered (Arnstein, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref141">9</reflink>]; McAlevey, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref142">77</reflink>]). Bottom-up change involves identifying and developing <emph>organic leaders</emph> within local communities to take action on their own behalf (McAlevey, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref143">77</reflink>]; Payne, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref144">96</reflink>]). This approach recognizes that people can be competent solvers of their own problems (Mulgan, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref145">85</reflink>]). One approach is to identify and leverage <emph>positive deviants</emph>—cases in which people are solving their own problems against the odds (Mulgan, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref146">85</reflink>]; Pascale et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref147">94</reflink>]). Some scholars and practitioners argue that the bottom-up approach is more conducive to creating long-term, sustainable, and empowering change within a community (McAlevey, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref148">77</reflink>]; Payne, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref149">95</reflink>]; Raekstad & Gradin, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref150">104</reflink>]). For example, Payne ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref151">96</reflink>]) discusses the various representations of the civil rights movement in historical studies, and how the prominence of top-down views, focusing on national leaders and major actions, has created a false impression of how change actually occurred. Such authors argue that if changemakers are being brought in from the outside, progress is likely to stall when they eventually leave.</p> <p>We note that not all pathways to societal change may be possible in all situations. For example, the influential Resource Mobilization Theory posits that the success of social movements is dependent upon external support and access to key resources including time, money, and skills (McCarthy & Zald, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref152">78</reflink>]). Similarly, a highly influential comparative analysis of social revolutions—which can be characterized as transformational, confrontational, and bottom-up—argues that particular macro-structural and historical conditions, such as the collapse of state administrative and military structures due to international pressures, are prerequisites for success (Skocpol, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref153">115</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the on-going debates surrounding the efficacy of various changemaking strategies, the upshot of this is that metachangemaking programs should consider whether the changemakers they are cultivating are likely to be effective in the circumstances they are targeting. More confrontational metachangemaking programs, for example, might focus on training changemakers in competencies such as courage and an action-orientation. More collaborative programs might instead focus on competencies such as empathy, conflict resolution, and relationship building. In Table 3, we list some potential changemaker competencies that were suggested in the literature. We organize these competencies into four broad categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, creative and strategic, and critical and normative.</p> <p>Table 3. Some changemaker competencies suggested in the literature.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Type</td><td>Competence</td><td>Description</td><td>Select References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intrapersonal</td><td>Action orientation</td><td>Taking practical action to deal with a problem or situation</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Jensen & Schnack, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">1997</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Adaptability</td><td>Accepting uncertainty and adjusting to new conditions</td><td>(A. Brown, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2017</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Bravery and courage</td><td>Asking difficult questions, facing fears and the unknown</td><td>(Damon & Colby, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2015</xref>; Payne, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr96">1995</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Perseverance</td><td>Persisting and recovering quickly from challenges and difficulties</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Mulgan, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">2006</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-reflection & management</td><td>Reflecting on and managing one's values, intentions, biases, actions, experiences, & learning</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Interpersonal</td><td>Collaboration</td><td>Working together with others to achieve a goal</td><td>(Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; A. Brown, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2017</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Communication</td><td>Listening intently and presenting ideas clearly and compellingly</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Mulgan, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">2006</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Conflict resolution</td><td>Facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict</td><td>(Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2011</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Empathy</td><td>Cultivating deep understanding of others' thoughts and feelings</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Inclusivity and openness</td><td>Valuing diverse perspectives and pursuing equitable impact</td><td>(Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Fuessel, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2020</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Leadership</td><td>Inspiring others, making decisions, articulating a vision, marshaling resources</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Kim et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Relationship building</td><td>Cultivating understanding, respect, and trust with others</td><td>(Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; A. Brown, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2017</xref>; Fuessel, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2020</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Creative and Strategic</td><td>Creativity and imagination</td><td>Generating novel solutions and imagining alternative futures</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Problem solving</td><td>Recognizing problems and developing solution strategies</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Systems thinking</td><td>Understanding interdependence & complexity of social systems</td><td>(Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Meadows, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2008</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Critical and Normative</td><td>Critical thinking</td><td>Critically evaluating information, assumptions, strategies, & ideas</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Ethical reasoning</td><td>Making decisions based on core values and ethical analysis</td><td>(Alden Rivers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2015</xref>; Ashoka, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2019</xref>; Weil, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2016</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Rationality</td><td>Using reason and evidence to form beliefs and make decisions</td><td>(MacAskill, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr72">2015</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Our synthesis of the literature suggests several open questions regarding changemaker competencies. One open question is: <emph>Which competencies, if any, are important for all contexts (domain general) and which are important only for specific contexts (domain specific)?</emph> A second open question is: <emph>To what extent are particular competencies transferable across domains, and under what conditions?</emph> Additionally, many of the competencies listed in Table 3 were suggested by educators and scholars rather than changemaker practitioners, so a third open question is: <emph>What competencies do changemakers themselves believe are most salient?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0189411031-8">3.4. Cultivating changemaker competencies</hd> <p>Several pedagogical approaches have been proposed in the literature for cultivating various changemaker competencies, including project-based learning, community-engaged learning (sometimes referred to as service-learning), and case-based learning (Fuessel, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref154">40</reflink>]; Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref155">71</reflink>]). Example activities for each of these pedagogies, along with reported effect sizes, are provided in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. Some suggested pedagogical approaches for cultivating changemaker competencies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Approach</td><td>Example Activities</td><td>Effect Size</td><td>Select References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Project-Based Learning</td><td>Implementing a school composting program to reduce food waste</td><td>0.71</td><td>(Chen & Yang, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2019</xref>; Lozano et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Community Engaged Learning/Service Learning</td><td>Partnering with a community based organization to develop educational materials for disadvantaged youth</td><td>0.28–0.52</td><td>(Lozano et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2017</xref>; Yorio & Ye, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr141">2012</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Case-Based Learning</td><td>Analyzing a realistic moral dilemma and recommending actions</td><td>0.46</td><td>(Lozano et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2017</xref>; O'Flaherty & McGarr, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2014</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Project-based learning (PjBL) involves students working (often in small groups) to solve a complex, open-ended, real-world problem (Kokotsaki et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref156">63</reflink>]). PjBL is rooted in the theory of constructivism (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref157">99</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref158">134</reflink>]), which posits that learning is a process whereby individuals construct knowledge for themselves through experience and interaction with others. Scholars have proposed that PjBL may have a high likelihood of fostering intrapersonal and creative and strategic changemaker competencies, and a moderate likelihood of facilitating interpersonal and critical and normative competencies (Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref159">71</reflink>]). In a study of 289 students in 12 U.S. Government and Politics classrooms across four schools, students in classrooms that used PjBL scored higher on an assessment of their ability to apply course knowledge to investigate real-world problems in politics and government (Parker et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref160">93</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 30 experimental studies reported a medium-to-large mean effect size (0.71) of PjBL on student learning compared to traditional instructional methods (Chen & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref161">27</reflink>]). However, some scholars have argued that much of the evidence for PjBL is based on pretest-posttest or quasi-experimental designs and that therefore causal claims cannot be established with high certainty (Kokotsaki et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref162">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Community engaged learning (CEL) and service learning (SL) are approaches in which students complete activities intended to benefit communities—ranging from <emph>traditional</emph> (e.g., short-term volunteering) to <emph>critical</emph> (e.g., prolonged collaboration to tackle a complex social issue)—along with reflection that links the experience to learning (Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref163">82</reflink>]). CEL/SL is informed by critical pedagogy, in which learners engage in <emph>praxis</emph>—the cycle of critical reflection and action to alter structures of injustice (Freire, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref164">39</reflink>]). Scholars have posited that CEL/SL practices may have a high likelihood of fostering intrapersonal and interpersonal changemaker competencies, and a moderate likelihood of developing creative and strategic and critical and normative competencies (Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref165">71</reflink>]). A study of 4,057 students across 52 schools reported that the impact of service learning on commitment to civic participation was substantially larger than other independent variable measures in the study (Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref166">58</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 40 CEL/SL articles reported positive effects on understanding of social issues (effect size = 0.34), intrapersonal changemaker competencies (effect size = 0.28), and problem solving and critical thinking (effect size = 0.52) (Yorio & Ye, [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref167">141</reflink>]).</p> <p>Case-based learning (CBL) engages students in analyzing and discussing a real world scenario (Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref168">71</reflink>]). Similar to project-based learning, CBL has roots in constructivist learning theory. Some scholars have suggested that CBL may have a high likelihood of supporting systems thinking and critical thinking, and a moderate likelihood of promoting interpersonal competencies and ethical reasoning (Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref169">71</reflink>]). A quasi-experimental study of 123 participants in a teacher education program reported that the use of case-based pedagogy increased levels of moral reasoning (effect size = 0.46) (O'Flaherty & McGarr, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref170">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two open questions are: <emph>Which pedagogies are most effective for specific age groups?</emph> and <emph>which age(s) should metachangemaking interventions focus on?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0189411031-9">3.5. Opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems</hd> <p>Numerous voices have expressed dissatisfaction with formal educational systems around the world. Weil ([<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref171">136</reflink>]), for instance, claims that the dominant education system primarily seeks to prepare students for global (economic) competitiveness, and argues that we instead need to adopt a more relevant and meaningful purpose for schooling. Caplan ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref172">24</reflink>]) argues that contemporary institutions of higher education in Western countries require thousands of hours of study yet do not enrich students' lives. As another example, Gill and Thomson ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref173">45</reflink>]) claim that educational systems around the world have contributed to a culture of 'uncaring' in various ways: omitting ethically oriented components from curricula; emphasizing learning for the sake of financial gain; and fostering individualism through, for instance, competition for higher grades.</p> <p>Alternative models of education that specifically focus on metachangemaking have already been implemented around the globe—albeit with varying scales and degrees of systematicity and success. For example, some schools in Denmark and Ireland have integrated classes into their curricula which educate students in empathy (Taggart, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref174">121</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref175">122</reflink>]). FUNDAEC (The Foundation for the Application and Teaching of the Sciences) has implemented educational programs throughout Latin America with the explicit purpose of enabling participants to contribute to the wellbeing of their communities (Arbab et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref176">8</reflink>]). The Ashoka Foundation has developed an international network of primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools focused on cultivating changemakers (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref177">60</reflink>]; Tramontin & Solesin, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref178">130</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite calls for, and examples of, alternative models of education, several challenges confront the implementation and expansion of metachangemaking programs, as there is a long history of failed educational reforms (Tyack & Tobin, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref179">131</reflink>]). One challenge is the dissensus about the ideal aims of education. Biesta ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref180">18</reflink>]) claims that two key goals of education systems around the world are preparing citizens and preparing workers. Different education stakeholders may prioritize these goals differently and thus influence the types of curriculum reform that are possible. While metachangemaking is clearly aligned with civic education, many of the changemaker competencies we identified also overlap with so-called '21st century skills' that have been proposed as vital for a rapidly changing and uncertain economy and workplace, like creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking (National Research Council et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref181">86</reflink>]). Metachangemaking can potentially foster both effective citizens and effective workers.</p> <p>Another challenge concerns curriculum overload. Many policymakers, educators, and students in both developed and developing countries feel that curricula are too crowded to accommodate new content (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref182">89</reflink>]). However, much research has reported that students learn content more effectively when it is contextualized. For example, a meta-analysis of 62 studies reported that, compared to controls, service-learning was associated with increased academic achievement (effect size = 0.43) (Celio et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref183">25</reflink>]). Pedagogical approaches for cultivating changemaker competencies may thus enhance, rather than diminish, learning of domain-specific content. To make the best possible use of any curricular space that might become available, changemaking competencies and dispositions could be prioritized according to how impactful it would be if students developed them, how neglected they are, and how effectively and efficiently they can be taught (Gainsburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref184">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>A third challenge is the siloed nature of school subjects. Effectively tackling complex societal problems might require interdisciplinary knowledge and skills (Ashoka, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref185">10</reflink>]; Lozano et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref186">71</reflink>]). Yet some education scholars and practitioners claim that the dominant education systems around the world rarely engage students in interdisciplinary learning (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref187">89</reflink>]; Weil, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref188">136</reflink>]). Weil ([<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref189">136</reflink>]) argues that we instead need interdisciplinary learning oriented around a specific theme or problem, which could be addressed through various disciplinary lenses.</p> <p>Two open questions emerge from these findings. First, <emph>what insights can past or present metachangemaking programs yield about how to successfully cultivate changemakers?</emph> Second, <emph>how can metachangemaking be effectively implemented into the core curriculum of education systems given the various cultural, political, and organizational challenges?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0189411031-10">3.6. Replicability of the literature</hd> <p>Seventy-five of the articles, books, and reports we cited when presenting results in the previous sections were available in the Scite.ai database. Of these, 2 (2.7%) were classified as having strong support, and 15 (20%) were classified as having good support. In Table 5, we list the ideas with either strong or good empirical support.</p> <p>Table 5. Reviewed ideas that are well-supported based on a scite.Ai analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Description</td><td>References</td><td>Supporting Citations (S)</td><td>Contradicting Citations (C)</td><td>C:S Ratio</td><td>Level of Support</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Theory of Planned Behavior</td><td>(Ajzen, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">1991</xref>)</td><td>1,581</td><td>117</td><td>7.4%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Value-Belief-Norm theory</td><td>(Stern, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr118">2000</xref>)</td><td>194</td><td>11</td><td>5.7%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Social Identity Model of Collective Action</td><td>(van Zomeren et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr133">2008</xref>)</td><td>188</td><td>17</td><td>9.0%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Personality predicts prosocial behavior</td><td>(Thielmann et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128">2020</xref>)</td><td>30</td><td>3</td><td>10.0%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Moral norms and values predict prosocial behavior</td><td>(Bekkers & Wiepking, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2011</xref>)</td><td>39</td><td>1</td><td>2.6%</td><td>Strong</td></tr><tr><td>Economic factors predict prosocial behavior</td><td>(Blake, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">1999</xref>)</td><td>30</td><td>1</td><td>3.3%</td><td>Strong</td></tr><tr><td>Altruism may not produce prosocial behavior</td><td>(Batson & Powell, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2003</xref>)</td><td>33</td><td>2</td><td>6.1%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Happiness-altruism connection</td><td>(Aknin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2013</xref>)</td><td>22</td><td>1*</td><td>4.5%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>(Curry et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2018</xref>)</td><td>20</td><td>1*</td><td>5.0%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Compassion training</td><td>(Condon et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2013</xref>)</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>5.9%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>(Kirby et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2017</xref>)</td><td>21</td><td>2</td><td>9.5%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>(Leiberg et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2011</xref>)</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>6.7%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Exemplar exposure approach</td><td>(Chawla & Cushing, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2007</xref>)</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>5.9%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Personality-feedback intervention</td><td>(Roberts et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr106">2017</xref>)</td><td>35</td><td>2</td><td>5.7%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>(Thielmann & de Vries, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr127">2021</xref>)</td><td>18</td><td>0</td><td>0.0%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown role of prosocial motivation factors</td><td>(Shove, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr113">2010</xref>)</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>0.0%</td><td>Good</td></tr><tr><td>(Gifford, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2011</xref>)</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>6.7%</td><td>Good</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Contradicting citations with an asterisk denote cases where the analysis initially indicated a greater number of disagreements that, upon deeper inspection, we deemed to be not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-11">4. Discussion</hd> <p>We have attempted to synthesize some of the diverse extant literature across a broad array of disciplines that is relevant to cultivating changemakers. In this section, we summarize our findings, outline some general limitations of that literature, and propose potentially promising directions for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-12">4.1. Summary of findings</hd> <p>Our literature synthesis identified several themes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref190">1</reflink>) changemaker motivations, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref191">2</reflink>) cultivating changemaker motivations, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref192">3</reflink>) changemaker competencies, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref193">4</reflink>) cultivating changemaker competencies, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref194">5</reflink>) opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems. The first theme—changemaker motivations—concerns the factors that motivate prosocial behavior. A number of psychological and sociological theories of individual and collective prosocial behavior have been proposed, but they all have potential limitations. However, these models may still provide insight into the internal (social-psychological) and external (contextual) factors that may be significantly correlated with prosocial behaviors. Some empirical studies have reported on the purported strength of these correlations.</p> <p>The second theme—cultivating changemaker motivations—highlights strategies for motivating prosocial behavior. Various approaches have been explored in the literature, such as exemplar exposure, the happiness-altruism connection, compassion training, empathy training, identity-intervention, fostering purpose, norm-nudging, personality intervention, and values affirmation. Each approach targets different antecedent motivation variables. Example interventions for each strategy have been reported along with effect sizes.</p> <p>The third theme—changemaker competencies—focuses on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that may be needed to become an effective changemaker. Sociological theories of societal change provide a taxonomy of change strategies (e.g., incremental versus transformational, cooperative versus confrontational, and top down versus bottom up), each of which may require distinct competencies. Theories and historical examples of societal changemaking suggest key competencies that can be broadly categorized into interpersonal, intrapersonal, creative and strategic, and critical and normative.</p> <p>The fourth theme—cultivating changemaker competencies—concerns pedagogical approaches for cultivating changemaker competencies. Project-based learning, service-learning/community-engaged learning, and case-based learning were some strategies described in the literature. According to some studies, each pedagogical approach may have a high likelihood of fostering a distinct set of particular changemaker competencies.</p> <p>The fifth theme—opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems—captures demands for, examples of, and obstacles facing alternative educational models grounded in metachangemaking. A number of scholars have critiqued dominant, contemporary education systems as lacking sufficient meaning and purpose. Alternative education models that center metachangemaking have already been implemented across the world. However, numerous hurdles face the expansion of metachangemaking programs, including disagreement over the goals of education, overloaded curricula, and the siloed nature of school subjects.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-13">4.2. Limitations</hd> <p>Much of the extant research we drew upon was susceptible to three limitations: lack of replicability, lack of ability to establish causality, and lack of transferability. First, as highlighted by the recent and ongoing <emph>replication crisis</emph> across multiple disciplines in the sciences (Fidler & Wilcox, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref195">38</reflink>]), much of the literature we synthesized may not present reliable and replicable findings. Results from the Scite.ai analysis, shown in Table 5, indicate that only 23% of the articles we cited were classified as having either strong or good support. Most of the remaining literature simply lacked a sufficient number of supporting citations.</p> <p>A second limitation is that many of the empirical studies, reviews, and meta-analyses we cited in our synthesis were based on correlational designs. The <emph>causal revolution</emph> has called into question the lack of evidence for many proposed causal mechanisms (Pearl & Mackenzie, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref196">97</reflink>]). For example, although past research suggests a strong association between education and political participation, a recent review article reported mixed/inconclusive evidence for the causal impact of education on political participation (Willeck & Mendelberg, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref197">139</reflink>]).</p> <p>A third limitation is that it is not clear how transferable reported insights are to various contexts. Some studies have reported that transfer of learning to new situations may be rare under many circumstances (Barnett & Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref198">12</reflink>]). In the context of metachangemaking, insights about how to cultivate prosocial behavior in one context might not generalize to another; for instance, figuring out how to motivate and equip someone to spend a few hours volunteering for a charitable organization may be very different from figuring out how to motivate and equip them to direct an organization that seeks to create systemic change. In general, many of the theories and studies we referenced focused on short-term, individual prosocial behaviors rather than prolonged, collective societal problem solving. Hence, transferability is a topic for further investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-14">4.3. Future research directions</hd> <p>We propose two key areas of future research: theoretical and methodological. Regarding theoretical issues, metachangemaking lacks a comprehensive, evidence-based theoretical framework (or frameworks). Throughout this paper we have articulated some pertinent unresolved questions that emerged from our synthesis of the literature on metachangemaking, listed in Table 6, which may help guide theory development. These questions might be partially answered by empirical studies of existing changemakers and metachangemaking programs. Such research could uncover the 'parameters' of different models or theoretical frameworks of metachangemaking, effective approaches for cultivating changemaker motivations and competencies, and insights into the strengths and limitations of different models.</p> <p>Table 6. Open research questions that emerged from our synthesis of the literature.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Theme</td><td>Open Research Questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Changemaker motivations</td><td>What is the relative importance of, and interactions between, the various changemaker motivation factors in different contexts?</td></tr><tr><td>Cultivating changemaker motivations</td><td>Which approaches are best for motivating changemakers in different circumstances?</td></tr><tr><td>Changemaker competencies</td><td>Which changemaker competencies, if any, are important for all contexts and which are important only for specific contexts?</td></tr><tr><td>To what extent are particular changemaker competencies transferable across domains, and under what conditions?</td></tr><tr><td>What competencies do changemakers themselves believe are most salient?</td></tr><tr><td>Cultivating changemaker competencies</td><td>What is the efficacy of different methods for cultivating changemaker competencies in learners at different life stages? Which age period(s) should metachangemaking interventions target?</td></tr><tr><td>Metachangemaking in education</td><td>What insights can past or present metachangemaking programs yield about how to successfully cultivate changemakers? How can metachangemaking be effectively implemented into the core curriculum of education systems given the various cultural, political, and organizational challenges?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Findings from our replication analysis combined with reported correlations and effect sizes suggest several approaches to cultivating changemaker motivations and competencies that may merit further examination. Promising approaches for cultivating changemaker motivations include the happiness-altruism connection, exemplar exposure, compassion training, empathy training, identity intervention, norm-nudging, personality feedback, and values affirmation. Promising approaches for cultivating changemaker competencies include project-based learning, community-engaged learning/service learning, and case-based learning.</p> <p>A second area of future research is to employ methodologies that address issues of replicability, causality, and transferability. Scholars have recently outlined methodological practices—such as confirmatory tests, large sample sizes, preregistration, and methodological transparency—that can reportedly increase replication rates from an average of 50% (from past systematic replication efforts) to over 86% (Protzko et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref199">103</reflink>]). Poor understanding of causal mechanisms suggests the need for experimental designs that can establish strong causal claims, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments (Shadish et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref200">111</reflink>]). Finally, regarding transferability, future research should prioritize studies and interventions that are specific to metachangemaking—or that at least satisfy the conditions under which transfer is most likely (Barnett & Ceci, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref201">12</reflink>])—as well as longitudinal studies that track whether participants in metachangemaking programs actually go on to become changemakers.</p> <p>By seeking to foster the requisite motivation and competencies for engendering positive societal change amongst vastly many people, we believe metachangemaking offers a promising approach to making a tremendous positive impact on the world.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-15">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We thank the following individuals for their contributions to this work: Karen Ge, Ross Hall, Bob Horn, Kuhan Jeyapragasan, Jake McKinnon, Zineb Mouhyi, Will Roderick, and Isabel Thielmann.</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0189411031-17">Data availability statement</hd> <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created in this study.</p> <ref id="AN0189411031-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agostini, M., & van Zomeren, M. (2021). Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (7), 667 – 700. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aknin, L., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Nyende, P., Ashton-James, C. E., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104 (4), 635 – 652. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Alden Rivers, B., Armellini, A., & Nie, M. (2015). Embedding social innovation and social impact across the disciplines: Identifying "changemaker" attributes. Higher Education, Skills & Work-Based Learning, 5 (3), 242 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-10-2014-0051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref63" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Alicke, M., Vredenburg, D. S., Hiatt, M., & Govorun, O. (2001). The "better than myself effect ". Motivation and Emotion, 25 (1), 7 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010655705069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Alinsky, S. (1989). Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. Vintage Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Arbab, F., Correa, G., & de Valcarcel, F. (2010). FUNDAEC: Its principles and activities. FUNDAEC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref141" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ashoka, U. (2011). Ashoka U curriculum guide. Ashoka.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ashoka, U. (2019). Preparing students for a rapidly changing world: Social entrepreneurship, social innovation, and changemaker learning outcomes. Ashoka U.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (4), 612 – 637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batson, C., & Powell, A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. Millon (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (pp. 463 – 484). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1 (3), 311 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumsteiger, R. (2019). What the world needs now: An intervention for promoting prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41 (4), 215 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1639507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (5), 924 – 973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bicchieri, C., & Dimant, E. (2019). Nudging with care: The risks and benefits of social information. Public Choice. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3319088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (1), 33 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the "value‐action gap" in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4 (3), 257 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronk, K. (2013). Purpose in life: A critical component of optimal youth development. Springer Science & Business Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronk, K., Baumsteiger, R., Mangan, S., Riches, B., & Dubon, V. (2019). Fostering purpose among young adults: Effective online interventions. Journal of Character Education, 15 (2), 21 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, A. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. AK Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, M., McGrath, R. E., Bier, M. C., Johnson, K., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2023). A comprehensive meta-analysis of character education programs. Journal of Moral Education, 52 (2), 119 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2022.2060196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caplan, B. (2019). The case against education. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. The Journal of Experiential Education, 34 (2), 164 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591103400205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13 (4), 437 – 452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, C.-H., & Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research, 26, 71 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby, A., & Damon, W. (2010). Some do care. Simon and Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W. B., & DeSteno, D. (2013). Meditation increases compassionate responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24 (10), 2125 – 2127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613485603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, D. A. (2019). Systematic and Nonsystematic Reviews: Choosing an Approach. In D. Nestel, J. Hui, K. Kunkler, M. W. Scerbo, & A. W. Calhoun (Eds.), Healthcare Simulation Research: A Practical Guide (pp. 55 – 60). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83 (2), 85 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon, W. (2009). The path to purpose: How young people find their calling in life. Simon and Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon, W. (2010). The bridge to character. Educational Leadership, 67 (5), 36 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon, W., & Colby, A. (2015). The power of ideals: The real story of moral choice. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101 (1), 91 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fidler, F., & Wilcox, J. (2021). Reproducibility of Scientific Results. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/scientific-reproducibility/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuessel, A. (2020). Becoming a changemaker institution. Ashoka U.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gainsburg, I., Pauer, S., Nawal, A., Aloyo, E. T., Mourrat, J.-C., & Cristia, A. (2022). How effective altruism can help psychologists maximize their impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221079596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. P., & Carr, D. S. (1991). Introduction to sociology. W. W. Norton & Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66 (4), 290 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49 (3), 141 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gill, S., & Thomson, G. (2020). Ethical education: Towards an ecology of human development. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halstead, J. (2010). Moral Education. In C. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 630 – 631). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, H., Kim, J., Jeong, C., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Attainable and relevant moral exemplars are more effective than extraordinary exemplars in promoting voluntary service engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hecht, C., Priniski, S. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2019). Understanding long-term effects of motivation interventions in a changing world. Advances in Motivation and Achievement : A Research Annual, 20 (1), 81 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320190000020005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofmann, S., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. (2011). Loving-kindness and compassion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Review, 31 (7), 1126 – 1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horton, A. (1989). The highlander folk school: A history of its major programs, 1932–1961. Carlson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howarth, C., Campbell, C., Cornish, F., Franks, B., Garcia-Lorenzo, L., Gillespie, A., Gleibs, I. H., Goncalves-Portelinha, I., Jovchelovitch, S., Lahlou, S., Mannell, J. C., Reader, T. W., & Tennant, C. (2013). Insights from societal psychology: A contextual politics of societal change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1 (1), 364 – 384. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.64</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 146 (12), 1084 – 1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion, 8 (5), 720 – 724. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jay, S., Adshead, M., & Ryklief, S. (2023). "It's a life-changing point for me": critical consciousness, collective empowerment and global awareness as activist identity change in "popular education ". European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38 (1), 161 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00593-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3 (2), 163 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462970030205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahne, J., & Sporte, S. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students' commitment to civic participation. In M. Print & H. Milner (Eds.), Civic education and youth political participation (pp. 159 – 186). Brill | Sense.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (8), 1002 – 1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, M., Krampetz, E., & Ansari, B. (2018). Changemaker institutions. Ashoka U.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Steindl, S. R. (2017). A Meta-Analysis of Compassion-Based Interventions: Current State of Knowledge and Future Directions. Behavior Therapy, 48 (6), 778 – 792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 23 (5), 1028 – 1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19 (3), 267 – 277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, M., Brant, J., & Brooks, E. (2021). How is virtue cultivated? Journal of Character Education, 17 (1), 81 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, T. C. M., Kolomitro, K., & Alamparambil, F. C. (2011). Empathy training: Methods, evaluation practices, and validity. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7 (16), 162 – 200. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v7i16.314</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, M., Taylor-Collins, E., & Silverglate, C. (2019). Character education for social action: A conceptual analysis of the #iwill campaign. Journal of Social Science Education, 18 (1), 125 – 152. https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-918</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Short-term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS One, 6 (3), e17798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lind, G. (2016). How to teach morality: Promoting deliberation and discussion, reducing violence and deceit. Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of "muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19 (2), 79 – 88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lozano, R., Merrill, M. Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., & Lozano, F. J. (2017). Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability, 9 (10), 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacAskill, W. (2015). Doing good better: Effective altruism and a radical new way to make a difference. Guardian Faber Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macionis, J. J., Benoit, C., & Jansson, M. (2004). Society: The basics. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., & Damon, W. (2015). Civic purpose: An integrated construct for understanding civic development in adolescence. Human Development, 58 (2), 103 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381655</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsuba, M. K., Murzyn, T., & Hart, D. (2013). Moral identity development and community. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2 nd ed., pp. 520 – 537). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAdam, D. (2017). Social movement theory and the prospects for climate change activism in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 20 (1), 189 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAlevey, J. (2016). No shortcuts: Organizing for power in the new gilded age. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 82 (6), 1212 – 1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1 (6), 894 – 904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14 (2), 50 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moran, S., Bundick, M. J., Malin, H., & Reilly, T. S. (2013). How supportive of their specific purposes do youth believe their family and friends are? Journal of Adolescent Research, 28 (3), 348 – 377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558412457816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, A., & Mueller, C. (Eds.). (1992). Frontiers in social movement theory. Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2), 145 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & Center for Education. (2008). Research on Future Skill Demands: A Workshop Summary. National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholson, J., Mordaunt, M., Lopez, P., Uppala, A., Rosati, D., Rodrigues, N. P., Grabitz, P., & Rife, S. C. (2021). scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning. Quantitative Science Studies, 2 (3), 882 – 898. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Flaherty, J., & McGarr, O. (2014). The use of case-based learning in the development of student teachers' levels of moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (3), 312 – 330. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.870992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2020). Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okumah, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Novo, P., & Chapman, J. (2020). Revisiting the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour to Inform Land Management Policy: A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Model Application. Land, 9 (5), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. (1992). Altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. Simon and Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment & Behavior, 38 (4), 462 – 483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505286012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, W. C., Lo, J., Yeo, A. J., Valencia, S. W., Nguyen, D., Abbott, R. D., Nolen, S. B., Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. J. (2013). Beyond breadth-speed-test: Toward deeper knowing and engagement in an advanced placement course. American Educational Research Journal, 50 (6), 1424 – 1459. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213504237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascale, R., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The power of positive deviance. Harvard Business Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payne, C. (1989). Ella Baker and models of social change. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14 (4), 885 – 899. https://doi.org/10.1086/494549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payne, C. (1995). I've got the light of freedom: The organizing tradition and the Mississippi freedom struggle. University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfattheicher, S., Nielsen, Y. A., & Thielmann, I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1973). To Understand is to Invent: The Future of Education. Penguin Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H.-W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16 (1), 27 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000331</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prentice, D., & Paluck, E. L. (2020). Engineering social change using social norms: Lessons from the study of collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 138 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prentice, M., Gonzalez Cruz, H., & Lieder, F. (2022, September 8–10). Evaluating life reflection techniques to help people select virtuous life goals [Conference presentation]. Integrating Research on Character and Virtues: 10 Years of Impact, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Protzko, J., Krosnick, J., Nelson, L., Nosek, B. A., Axt, J., Berent, M., Buttrick, N., DeBell, M., Ebersole, C. R., Lundmark, S., MacInnis, B., O'Donnell, M., Perfecto, H., Pustejovsky, J. E., Roeder, S. S., Walleczek, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2024). High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable. Nature Human Behaviour, 8 (2), 311 – 319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01749-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raekstad, P., & Gradin, S. S. (2020). Prefigurative politics: Building tomorrow today. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reich, C. A. (1970). The greening of America. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143 (2), 117 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, C. R., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Motivating prosocial behavior by leveraging positive self‐regard through values affirmation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52 (2), 106 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12841</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9 (4), 349 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90071-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221 – 279). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherman, S. (2011). Changing the world: The science of transformative action. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 329 – 345). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9938-9_18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment & Planning A, 42 (6), 1273 – 1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2015). Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41 (1), 43 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stachowiak, S. (2013). Pathways for change: 10 theories to inform advocacy and policy change efforts. ORS Impact.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus determinants. Advances in experimental social psychology, 7 (1), 293 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60040-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, P. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. The Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6 (2), 81 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoecker, R. (2016). Liberating service learning and the rest of higher education civic engagement. Temple University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taggart, E. (2020a). Irish school decides to ditch homework and assign "acts of kindness" instead. My Modern Met. https://mymodernmet.com/school-ditches-homework-acts-of-kindness/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taggart, E. (2020b). Schools in Denmark have mandatory empathy classes as part of the official curriculum. My Modern Met. https://mymodernmet.com/empathy-classes-demark/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2004). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M.-J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56 – 65). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tappin, B. M., & McKay, R. T. (2017). The illusion of moral superiority. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 8 (6), 623 – 631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616673878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, M. C. (2019). Situationism and the problem of moral improvement. Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Mind and Action, 22 (3), 312 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2019.1656281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63 (1), 32 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thielmann, I., & de Vries, R. E. (2021). Who wants to change and how? On the trait-specificity of personality change goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 121 (5), 1112 – 1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146 (1), 30 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titova, L., & Sheldon, K. M. (2022). Happiness comes from trying to make others feel good, rather than oneself. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17 (3), 341 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1897867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tramontin, L., & Solesin, L. (2023). Educating agents of change: The international network of Ashoka Changemaker Schools. In E. Guarcello & A. Longo (Eds.), School Children as Agents of Change (pp. 203 – 212). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (3), 453 – 479. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Zomeren, M., Kutlaca, M., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2018). Integrating who "we" are with what "we" (will not) stand for: A further extension of the social identity model of collective action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29 (1), 122 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 504 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39 (1), 40 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weil, Z. (2016). The world becomes what we teach: Educating a generation of solutionaries. Lantern Publishing & Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, D. E., Caldwell, J. Z. K., Olson, M. C., Rogers, G. M., & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Compassion training alters altruism and neural responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24 (7), 1171 – 1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612469537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, M. (2016). The end of protest: A new playbook for revolution. Knopf Canada.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willeck, C., & Mendelberg, T. (2022). Education and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 25 (1), 89 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, C. C., & Chawla, L. (2016). Environmental identity formation in nonformal environmental education programs. Environmental Education Research, 22 (7), 978 – 1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1055553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A Meta-Analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (1), 9 – 27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zagzebski, L. (2017). Exemplarist moral theory. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaki, J. (2019). The war for kindness: Building empathy in a fractured world. Crown.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brandon M. Reynante; John E. Wilcox; Oliver L. Stephenson; Falk Lieder and Chris Lacopo</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Brandon Reynante is the Director of Community Engaged Learning in Sustainability at Stanford University. He earned a PhD in learning sciences and technology design from the Stanford Graduate School of Education.</p> <p>John Wilcox is an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Columbia University. He earned a PhD in philosophy and psychology from Stanford University.</p> <p>Oliver Stephenson is an independent researcher. He earned a PhD in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.</p> <p>Falk Lieder is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he directs the Rational Altruism Lab. He earned a PhD in neuroscience from the University of California, Berkeley.</p> <p>Chris Lacopo is an Academic and Career Advisor at the Parsons School of Design – The New School. He earned an MA in policy, organization, and leadership studies from the Stanford Graduate School of Education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref200"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1505446
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Metachangemaking: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Research on Cultivating Changemakers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brandon+M%2E+Reynante%22">Brandon M. Reynante</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6654">0000-0001-5776-6654</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22John+E%2E+Wilcox%22">John E. Wilcox</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Oliver+L%2E+Stephenson%22">Oliver L. Stephenson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Falk+Lieder%22">Falk Lieder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chris+Lacopo%22">Chris Lacopo</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Moral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Moral Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 54(4):684-709.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change+Agents%22">Change Agents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motivation%22">Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competence%22">Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Change%22">Social Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Methods%22">Educational Methods</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03057240.2024.2342274
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-7240<br />1465-3877
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: "Metachangemaking" refers to the cultivation of changemakers--people with the motivation and competence to tackle societal issues and promote collective wellbeing. It is not entirely clear how to effectively cultivate changemakers, and relevant research spans many disparate fields. The goals of this article are to introduce the concept of metachangemaking, synthesize and evaluate some relevant literature which may be less familiar to particular audiences, and identify open questions for future research. We identified a number of themes, including changemaker motivations and competencies, approaches to cultivating such motivations and competencies, and opportunities and challenges for metachangemaking in education systems. There are many important outstanding questions that suggest directions for future research, such as the efficacy of various approaches to cultivating changemaker motivations and competencies in particular circumstances. There is a need for evidence-based theoretical frameworks of metachangemaking, and for studies that address issues of replicability, causality, and transferability to various changemaking contexts.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1505446
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1505446
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03057240.2024.2342274
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 684
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Change Agents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Metachangemaking: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Research on Cultivating Changemakers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brandon M. Reynante
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: John E. Wilcox
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Oliver L. Stephenson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Falk Lieder
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chris Lacopo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-7240
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3877
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Moral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1