What were three different conditions participants were placed into? Study 1
 How often and for how long did participants have to journal?
 
 What were the dependent variables in this study? (What were they measuring?)
 What were the findings of the study?
Study 2
 What were some ways in which the methodology of Study 2 differed from Study 1?
 What were three different conditions participants were placed into? Why did the conditions differ from Study 1? What was the rationale for the conditions the authors used in Study 2?
 How often and for how long did participants have to journal?
 What were the dependent variables in this study? (What were they measuring?)
 What were the findings of the study?
Study 3
 Who were the participants in study 3?
 What were the conditions participants were placed into? Why do you think they only had two conditions? (They don't explicitly state why, but what would be your guess?).
 What were the findings of study 3?
Be able to describe at least 4 different ways in which the various studies differed from one another (in terms of their methods).

Transcribed Image Text:

378 1977, p. 316). The benefit, gift, or personal gain might be material or nonmaterial (e.g., emotional or spiritual). As an emotion, gratitude is an attribution-dependent state (Weiner, 1985) that results from a two-step cognitive process: (a) recognizing that one has obtained a positive outcome, and (b) recognizing that there is an external source for this positive out- come. Lazarus and Lazarus (1994) argued that gratitude is one of the "empathic emotions" whose roots lie in the capacity to empa- thize with others. The core relational theme associated with grat- itude is recognition or appreciation of an altruistic gift. Gratitude is a complex state that belongs to the category of affective- cognitive conditions (Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987) in which both affect and cognition are predominant-meaning components of the term. There are reasons to believe that experiences of gratitude might be associated perhaps even in a causal fashion-with happiness and well-being. Researchers, writers, and practitioners have all speculated that gratitude possesses happiness-bestowing proper- ties. Chesterton (1924) contended that "gratitude produced... the most purely joyful moments that have been known to man" (p. 114). Several theorists and researchers (e.g., Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Mayer, Salovey, Gomberg-Kaufman, & Blainey, 1991; Or- tony, Clore, & Collins, 1986; Weiner, 1985) have noted that gratitude typically has a positive emotional valence. Initial research suggests that gratitude is a moderately pleasant and activating emotion. Research has shown that gratitude is a pleasant state and is linked with positive emotions including con- tentment (Walker & Pitts, 1998), happiness, pride, and hope (Overwalle, Mervielde, & De Schuyter, 1995). In research on the scaling of emotion terms, gratitude tends to load on pleasantness and activation factors (Mayer et al., 1991; Reisenzein, 1994). In an empirically derived taxonomy of emotion terms, gratitude was clustered in a category of positive, interpersonal feelings that included admiration, respect, trust and regard (Storm & Storm, 1987). In similarity judgments of emotions, thankfulness is rated as highly similar to joy and contentment, and as highly dissimilar to contempt, hate, and jealousy (Schimmack & Reisenzein, 1997). Gratitude was 1 of 50 emotion terms included in Davitz's (1969) study of the structure of emotional meaning. Forty subjects rated the relevance of over 500 descriptive statements designed to cap- ture various elements of emotional experiences. Twelve clusters of emotion meaning were identified, on four of which gratitude loaded highly: activation, comfort/harmony, moving toward oth- ers, and enhancement/expansion of self. In addition to its merit as an intrinsically rewarding state, gratitude may lead to other posi- tive subjective experiences. In a recent Gallup (1998) survey of American teens and adults, over 90% of respondents indicated that expressing gratitude helped them to feel "extremely happy" or "somewhat happy." Lastly, McCullough et al. (2002) found that dispositional gratitude was related to, but distinct from, trait mea- sures of positive affect, vitality, optimism, envy, depression, and anxiety. Although gratitude overlaps with other positive feelings, it also possesses a unique pattern of appraisals that distinguishes it from happiness (Weiner, 1985). benevolence of others, we hypothesize that those in the gratitude- focused group would show enhanced psychosocial functioning relative to persons in the hassles and life events groups (Study 1), hassles and downward social comparison groups (Study 2), and to a true control group (Study 3). In the first two studies the partic- ipants are college students, whereas in Study 3 we recruited adults with congenital and adult-onset neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) to increase the potential generalizability of the results. Although we believe we have sketched a compelling case for the benefit conferring effect of gratitude, in our view this relationship is neither inevitable nor unequivocal. Although gratitude as an emotion has been shown to covary with other positive affective states (Mayer et al., 1991) and has generally been portrayed as a virtue in the moral philosophy literature, attention has also been drawn to its negative side. To be grateful means to allow oneself to be placed in the position of a recipient to feel indebted and aware of one's dependence on others. Gratitude has an obligatory aspect. People are expected to repay kindnesses. Most people experience indebtedness as an unpleasant and aversive psycholog- ical state (Greenberg & Westcott, 1983). Thus, making people aware of the things in their lives to be grateful for might increase their recognition of the need to reciprocate, and people may resent these obligations and even report strong negative feelings toward their benefactors, even as extreme as hatred (Elster, 1999). Another reason why our predictions are not obvious has to do with the observation that people are characterized by baseline levels of happiness. Set-point theory (Diener & Diener, 1996; Lykken, 1999) maintains that people's long-term levels of happi- ness are relatively stable and vary only slightly around genetically endowed levels. The degree to which well-being evaluations can be altered through short-term psychological interventions and sus- tained over time remains to be seen. If there are chronic baseline levels of affect, then raising the level of affect beyond a person's set point may be difficult. Thus, we believe this research represents a particularly strong test of the happiness-inducing potential of gratitude. If it is possible to demonstrate that there are significant effects of a brief intervention to induce gratitude, then the potential for a longer, more sustained effort would exist. 380 Participants The sample consisted of 201 undergraduate participants (147 women, 54 men) enrolled in a health psychology class in a large, public university. They participated to fulfill the experiential learning component of the course. Of these, 9 were dropped from data analysis because of missing or incomplete data, leaving a total of 192 participants. Students were given an alternative of roughly equal time commitment to not participating in the research; only one opted for the alternative. Procedure At the beginning of the academic quarter, participants were given a packet of 10 weekly reports. The packets were organized into three different clusters, representing the three experimental conditions, and were randomly distributed during the second class session. In the gratitude condition, participants were provided with the following instructions: appetite, coughing/sore throat, or other. Space was also provided for participants to write in any unlisted symptoms they may have experienced. A symptom measure was created by summing the 13 items within each weekly report. We have used this measure in previous research and it is a reliable and valid index of self-perceived health status (Elliot & Sheldon, 1998; Emmons, 1992; Pennebaker, 1982). Reactions to aid. As one additional way to measure grateful emotions in daily life, we assessed various reactions to help-giving. This seemed particularly appropriate given that the protypical situation in which grati- tude is felt is in response to benefits provided. On the weekly form, participants were asked to indicate how they had coped with the most serious problem with which they were concerned during the week. Among the coping options listed, the most relevant ones pertinent to this study were as follows: accepted sympathy from someone, talked to someone about how they were feeling, or received concrete help or advice from someone. If they answered "yes" to any of these, they were then asked to rate how they felt toward the person who provided the assistance using the following adjectives: grateful, annoyed, embarrassed, understood, sur- prised, glad, frustrated, and appreciative. These ratings were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. We subsequently summed grateful, appreciative, understood, and glad into a composite (α = .92). Gratitude, Happiness, and Well-Being: Mechanisms of Association Global appraisals. We included two questions on the weekly form to assess both concurrent and prospective overall well-being. Participants were asked to rate how they felt about their life as a whole during the week, on a -3 to +3 scale, anchored with the adjectives terrible and delighted (modeled after Andrews & Withey, 1976). A second question asked participants to rate their expectations for the upcoming week, also on a -3 to +3 scale, with the endpoints labeled pessimistic, expect the worst and optimistic, expect the best. the upcoming week (r Data Reduction For each of the 9 weeks during which follow-up surveys were collected, we aggregated people's scores on the three adjectives related to gratitude (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) to derive a single measure of mean weekly gratitude. These three adjectives were highly correlated, with internal consistency reliability (Cron- bach's alpha) estimates ranging from .86 to .92. These three-item composites were aggregated to form a single 9-week composite measure of gratitude. Similar 9-week composites were created for each of the 27 discrete affects. We omitted the first weekly report because the well-being items on the report were answered prior to the gratitude listing. We also calculated mean 9-week composites of positive and negative affect by submitting the 9-week composites of the 27 discrete affects to a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation (A = 0).¹ Five factors were extracted with ei- genvalues greater than 1.0, but eigenvalues dropped precipitously from the second to the third factor (from 7.4 to 1.3), so we concluded that only two factors were necessary to describe the interrelations among the 27 9-week composite affects. Therefore, we reconducted the factor analysis, specifying that only two fac- tors be extracted. These two factors accounted for 59% of the variance in the 27 9-week composite affects. The first factor, which accounted for 33% of the variance, was clearly a measure of positive affect, with all positive affects loading greater than .50 on this factor and no loadings greater than .30 with any of the negative Dependent variable Gratitude composite Positive affect factor Negative affect factor 382 There appeared to be some positive benefits for well-being to the gratitude condition in Study 1. Relative to the specific hassles and life events groups, participants in the gratitude condi- tion felt better about their lives as a whole, and were more optimistic regarding their expectations for the upcoming week. They reported fewer physical complaints and reported spending significantly more time exercising. Yet the gratitude condition did not appear to influence global positive or negative affect. Study 1 was limited in that participants were asked to complete only one report per week. The effects on emotional well-being might be more pronounced with a more intensive intervention. To introduce a stronger manipulation, we designed a second study. This second study was similar in most respects to Study 1 except that (a) diaries were kept on a daily basis over a 2-week period, (b) we replaced the life events group with a downward social comparison focused group, and (c) we included a wider range of well-being outcomes than in Study 1. taken. Because of attempted to decompose Table 1 Effects of Experimental Condition on 9-Week Mean Affects, Study 1 exercise. Strenuous exercise up a sweat and your heart laps, dancing). exhausting" lifting weights). they Data Reduction = Within each daily Reactions to Aid Grateful emotions in response to aid giving were significantly associated with higher ratings of joy and happiness² aggregated over the 9-week period (rs = 41 and 42, respectively, p < .01). These correlations were computed across all three conditions. The gratitude variable was also associated with more favorable life Life as whole Dependent variable appraisals (r .22, p < .01) and with more optimism concerning Upcoming week = 24, p < .01). In contrast, feeling Physical symptoms Hours of exercise annoyed, embarrassed, surprised, or frustrated in response to aid a single composite As in Study 1, we negative affect scores alcoholic beverages consumed, and the number of aspirins or Moderate (e.g., biking, We also the Prosocial Behaviors We asked participants to indicate, each day, if with a problem or offered someone emotional swered in a simple "yes" or "no" to each. Manipulation the variance We conducted gratitude rating as completely reasonably bore no relationship with these outcome measures. These data Note. N = 192. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different, indicate that grateful responses to help-giving are associated with more favorable overall evaluations of well-being. p < .05. *p < .05. of sleep received on a scale from 1 (very sound or restful) to 5 (very restless). positive ability 8.03, The positive this diator (gratitude) cantly related When 384 adjectives related to derive a adjectives were highly correlated, with internal consistency reli- ability (Cronbach's alpha) ranging from .84 to .90. These daily mean gratitude ratings were aggregated to form Participants The original sample consisted of 166 undergraduate participants (125 We included this condition to have a condition that appeared to be positive women, 41 men) enrolled in a health psychology class in a large, public on the surface (to attempt to control for demand characteristics) but in university. They participated to fulfill the experiential learning component reality might lead to different outcomes than the gratitude focus. Smith's of the course. Nine of the subjects were eventually eliminated for failing to provide complete data, leaving a total of 157. grateful emotion condition (but not the effect when can fill out affect, and affects. The second factor, of clearly a measure loading greater than .50 the variance, was of the negative affects no loadings greater Despite our use of an oblique rotation method, and negative affect factor than 30 with any of the 157) = .01, p > .05. also by submitting the ratings to a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation (A in Study 1, we specified that = 0; see Footnote 1). As only two factors be extracted. These factors accounted for 58% of factor, which measure of than .50 on the negative in accounted limited our mediational involved in difference in 5 their forms affect The correlation of about factors (M = SD 2 Rather than correlate the gratitude composite with each of the separate Note. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different, p < .05. affects, we chose the two clearest markers of pleasant affect, happiness and *p<.05. joy. = SD hassles conditions elicited significantly Conversely, levels of the independent variable to determine conditions 13-day follow-up 13-day mean gratitude and affect factors appear in Table 154) 8.40, affect had a significant p < .001), but the .001). factor elicited differential The connected connected). Check Subjective 386 * = the between-group exercise finding into more specific types of the exercise variable was defined as "hard exercise where you work beats fast" (e.g., aerobics, running, swimming exercise was defined easy swimming, using an exercise machine, asked participants to record previous night and to the gratitude the effects to a one-way ANOVA, with the dependent variable and the tal conditions (gratitude, hassles, social comparison) = period. a 5-point 5 = extremely). Study 1 Method quality of life Gratitude affecting Seyden, & Wineinger, provided us with vention could be effective = 2.55), mediates mediational Discussion Results diates the effect of the intervention on the Because the gratitude and more the downward analyses the 10.16ª 0.18 0.07 were appraisals week) that we used they felt positive (B = .06, p the intervention effect and positive when of the presumed conclude that the presumed Similarly, positions cantly Study 2 Method positive a significant the According to Baron and Kenny be present when the following intervention has presumed gratitude); (b) intervention has a significant criterion variable (i.e., positive affect); and (c) the presumed and (positive affect) are affect indexing regression coefficient indexing positive in Table 6 Comparisons Study 3 - Physical pain Pain interference estimates across affect, controlling for of Note. N 65. *p<.05. Exercise (yes/no) Functional status the mean difference between the gratitude and hassles conditions, 0.40 for the mean difference between the gratitude and social compar- ison conditions, and 0.39 for the mean difference between the social comparison and hassles conditions. Thus, relative to the survey, we aggregated scores on the three to gratitude (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) social comparison condition, the gratitude and hassles conditions single measure of mean daily gratitude. These three had nearly equal and opposite effects (i.e., SD = .40 and -.39, respectively) on daily levels of gratitude. It is interesting to note Results negative affect, with affects such as bitter, habitual is = 2.18), p < .05. Neither the be extracted. the from Days 13 group hassles) with gratitude negative sign indicating that the hassles condition. The correlation positive affect was r(N: 101) = .28, affect was regressed on the intervention effect = p < .01. multaneously, gratitude had a significant (3 = .85, p < .31). Conversely, = the the intervention provided Dependent variable Hassles unique intervention -0.13 -0.14 Daily Experience Daily affect. Each had experienced each of and appreciative, as well scale (ranging Likert-type the days. calculated mean 13-day 27 and Hours of sleep How refreshed on waking p = 9.08⁰ indirect (mediated) be computed as the product of the the intervention-gratitude relationship hassles conditions. of these two interventions affect correlation coefficients to enhance of our mediational analysis. the intervention effect (i.e., gratitude vs. was r(N = 101) = -.41, p<.001, with the score was lower in the mean gratitude of the intervention effect on 1998), married, 42% had was between quality effect of monitoring limited scores were virtually orthogonal, r(N intervention positive more generally. Moreover, the bivariate significant, F(2, = A associations do not test the possibility that the effects of the revealed that the gratitude condition elicited significantly more intervention on gratitude were the by-product of the more general gratitude (M 9.78, SD 1.80) than did the hassles condition effects of the interventions on positive affect. To examine these (M = the gratitude nor the latter hypotheses explicitly requires mediational analyses (e.g., different amounts of grat- Baron & Kenny, 1986). < .001. the = .041, not and a unique opportunity on criterion effect of the intervention the positive .001), completely tervention on affect, but it does appear of the gratitude intervention on grateful emotion as the by-product of the tualized strictly eral effects on positive affect. effect of 2-14 of -0.03 0.07 = EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH whether amounts of gratitude across and standard association effect did Events F(2, 193) 9.58ab when Study 3 Method a GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING of negative affect, they had helped someone support. These were an- which accounted The product these two coefficients is -.35. The proportion of affect association the total intervention-positive that is accounted for by the mediating effects therefore be computed as the indirect effect effect quotient (i.e., -.35/-.28). Multiplying a value exceeding 100%, so we can conceptualize of the intervention's effect on positive affect. complete mediator if we assume that the of the intervention on gratitude were mediated by positive affect, indirect effect we would calculate the as [(-.28)(.77)] = on gratitude of the intervention - .22. The proportion of the total effect of the intervention be attributed gratitude (r= = .41) that can the intervention on positive that it is reasonable affect, therefore, Thus, it appears to the effects of (1986, p. 1177), mediation three conditions two 27 13-day mean affect ratings. The first for 37% of the variance, was clearly a positive affect (attentive, determined, energetic, enthusiastic, ex- with all positive affects loading greater cited, interested, joyful, strong) than did participants in the hassles no loadings greater than group (M = -0.26, SD 0.94). The social comparison group (M = 0.00, SD = 1.16) was not significantly (p > .05) different from either the gratitude (p = .46) or hassles (p = .39) conditions. In contrast, there was little strong indication that the interventions had differential effects on negative affect during the 13-day period, F(2, 154) = 0.25, p = .78. affect but $15,000 life in thus is the gratitude-outlook this is controlled. on the criterion disappears mediator is controlled, one may mediator completely me- on the so-called the intervention item because the the variance, effects 7.58 3.04 2.96 2.30 1.60 1.63 EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH appeared to create more than did the hassles social comparison condition), we as the number of hours Gratitude composite rate the quality of that sleep Positive affect factor Negative affect factor loadings greater than sad, and afraid, and affects. the only to participants who were We GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING as the three gratitude and (b) gratitude the three the .80, p means the light on the stronger hypothesis that the gratitude intervention's the 13-day mean effects were responsible for the effects of the inter- 3. The main effect for condition was vention post hoc Scheffé's test Gratitude positive the 13-day mean three experimen- as "exercise that is not Dependent variable .30 with to deviations of positive and negative the intervention did gratitude was regressed on affect simultaneously, positive of any for 20% with all and affects. positive affect criterion. this factor the gratitude not there were pants in the control condition. However, no other differences in or on the six-item measure reported toms 4.69* 1.73 1.16 the intervention the effect are met: (a) an mediator Form as specific affects not at all to day, participants indicated the extent to which they 32 discrete affects (including grateful, thankful, used in Studies 1 and 2) on from 1= very slightly or well-being. Participants completed as a whole and optimism about the upcoming 2. In addition, participants indicated how with others (where and +3 = well- the same two global (regarding life in Study -3= isolated We included this issue in people with NMD unique association with gratitude well (B = the variance 29 21-day mean affect ratings. which accounted for 40% of the variance, was clearly EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH and if pain relievers Table 3 in Study 1, we Effects of Experimental Condition on 13-Day Mean Affects, Study 2 (i.e., effect on the correlation (r= in Study 1 (d = .56), suggesting that the daily tasks completed in positive and Study 2 were, on average, more potent in facilitating and inhibiting other 13-day affect gratitude than they were when completed on a more infrequent, weekly basis. general effect converted divided by The second was clearly intervention's ( indirect is .22/-.41 = 54%. conclude that gratitude 7.06 2.58 3.20 2.35 1.72 1.58 Savoring the Positive Circumstances of Life A grateful response to life circumstances may be an adaptive psychological strategy and an important process by which people positively interpret everyday experiences. The ability to notice, appreciate, and savor the elements of one's life has been viewed as a crucial determinant of well-being (Bryant, 1989; Janoff-Bulman & Berger, 2000; Langston, 1994). Frijda (1988) stated that "adap- tation to satisfaction can be counteracted by constantly being aware of how fortunate one's condition is and how it could have been otherwise, or actually was otherwise before. . . enduring happiness seems possible, and it can be understood theoretically" (p. 354). The personal commitment to invest psychic energy in develop- ing a personal schema, outlook, or worldview of one's life as a "gift" or one's very self as being "gifted" holds considerable sway from the standpoint of achieving optimal psychological function- ing. Indeed, numerous groups have absorbed this insight. For example, many religiously oriented events such as reflection days or scheduled week-long retreats have as a recurring theme the idea of a gift (e.g., those influenced by Jesuit spirituality) as do many self-help groups and organizations (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous). The regular practice of grateful thinking, then, should lead to enhanced psychological and social functioning. - Gratitude and Well-Being: Correlation or Causality? Foundationally, research on gratitude and well-being must ad- dress the issue of whether gratitude whether in the context of savoring positive life circumstances, coping with negative life circumstances, or trying to counteract negative emotions is a cause of well-being, per se, or merely a moderately positive and active emotion that people with high well-being frequently expe- rience. Of course, the most direct and unambiguous way to deter- mine whether gratitude exerts a causal effect on happiness and well-being would be in the context of experimental studies in which gratitude was manipulated and its effects on measures of well-being were observed. Control Purpose of the Present Studies In the spirit of understanding the link between gratitude and happiness, the purpose of this research is to experimentally inves- tigate the effects of a "grateful outlook" on psychological and physical well-being. More specifically, we address whether rela- tive to focusing on complaints or on neutral life events, a focus on "counting one's blessings" leads to enhanced psychological and physical functioning. Drawing together theoretical statements, popular beliefs, and previous empirical findings, we predict that self-guided exercises designed to induce a state of gratitude will lead to heightened well-being over time, relative to a focus on hassles, downward social comparisons, or neutral life events. In three studies, we randomly assigned participants to different ex- perimental conditions and then had them keep daily or weekly records of their positive and negative affect, coping behaviors, health behaviors, physical symptoms, and overall life appraisals. Because we are inducing people to dwell on the favorable, to appreciate the benefits that others provide, and hence reflect on the .19, as a Mediator of the Interventions' Effects on = The There are many things in our lives, both large and small, that we might be grateful about. Think back over the past week and write down on the lines below up to five things in your life that you are grateful or thankful for. Examples of gratitude-inducing experiences listed by participants were as follows: "waking up this morning," "the generosity of friends," "to God for giving me determination," "for wonderful parents," "to the Lord for just another day," and "to the Rolling Stones." In the hassles condition, they were told the following: (vs. hassles) in- that the effects can be concep- more gen- Hassles are irritants-things that annoy or bother you. They occur in various domains of life, including relationships, work, school, hous- ing, finances, health, and so forth. Think back over today and, on the lines below, list up to five hassles that occurred in your life. Examples of hassles listed by participants were as follows: "hard to find parking," "messy kitchen no one will clean," "finances depleting quickly," "having a horrible test in health psychology," "stupid people driving," and "doing a favor for friend who didn't appreciate it." In the events condition, they were asked the following: .77, p What were some of the events or circumstances that affected you in the past week? Think back over the past week and write down on the lines below the five events that had an impact on you. GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING Examples of events generated by participants were "talked to a doctor about medical school," "learned CPR," "cleaned out my shoe closet," "flew back to Sacramento," and "attended Whole Earth Festival." Subsequent coding of these events as positive, negative, or neutral revealed that 40% were rated as pleasant, 30% as unpleasant, and 30% as neutral. Given this balance, it would appear that we were successful in creating a reasonably neutral control condition. There were a total of 65 participants in the gratitude condition, 64 in the hassles group, and 67 in the events condition. These separate instructions were written on the weekly report, followed by five blank lines for participants to list blessings, hassles, or life events. To reduce potential experimental demand, the listing of gratitudes, hassles, or life events was made at the end of each weekly report following the other ratings. Reports were handed in at Monday's class to ensure com- pliance. If participants were unable to turn in the form Monday morning, they were instructed to turn them in as soon thereafter as possible. After the forms were passed out, each set of ratings were described to participants and any questions they had concerning the procedure were answered. = Well-Being Ratings In addition to the listing of blessings, hassles, or life events, the weekly form included ratings of mood, physical symptoms, reactions to social support received, estimated amount of time spent exercising, and two global life appraisal questions. The 30 affect terms were as follows: interested, distressed, excited, alert, irritable, sad, stressed, ashamed, happy, grateful, tired, upset, strong, nervous, guilty, joyful, determined, thankful, calm, attentive, forgiving, hostile, energetic, hopeful, enthusias- tic, active, afraid, proud, appreciative, and angry. Items were chosen on the basis of being commonly occurring affective states (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) as well as specific gratitude-related (thankful, apprecia- tive) feelings. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they have experienced each feeling during the past week on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). as Physical symptoms. We assessed physical symptoms by having par- ticipants check off whether they had experienced any of the following sensations: headaches, faintness/dizziness, stomachache/pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, acne/skin irritation, runny/congested nose, stiff or sore muscles, stomach upset/nausea, irritable bowels, hot or cold spells, poor effects of affects. The second factor, which accounted for 26% of the vari- ance, was clearly a measure of negative affect, with all of the negative affects loading greater than 60 on this factor and no loadings greater than .30 with any of the positive affects. Despite our use of an oblique rotation method, the positive affect and negative affect factor scores were virtually orthogonal, (N 192) = .04, p > .05. = Manipulation Check We conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the 9-week mean gratitude rating as the dependent variable and the three experimental conditions (gratitude, hassles, events) as the three levels of the independent variable to determine whether the three conditions elicited differential amounts of gratitude across the 9-week follow-up period. The means and standard deviations of the 9-week composite gratitude and the 9-week composite positive and negative affect factors appear in Table 1. The main effect for condition was significant, F(2, 189) = 4.69, p = .01. A post hoc Scheffé's test revealed that the gratitude condition elicited more gratitude (M = 10.16, SD 1.93) than did the hassles condition (M = 9.08, SD = 1.95), p < .05. Neither the gratitude nor the hassles conditions elicited significantly different amounts of gratitude than did the events condition (M = 9.58, SD = 2.15), ps > .05. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were 0.56 for the mean differ- ence between the gratitude and hassles conditions, 0.28 for the mean difference between the gratitude and neutral events condi- tions, and 0.24 for the mean difference between the neutral events and hassles conditions. Thus, relative to the neutral events condi- tion, the gratitude and hassles conditions had nearly equal and opposite effects (i.e., SD = 24 and 28, respectively) on daily levels of gratitude. However, participants in the gratitude condition did not differ significantly from participants in the hassles or events condition on either the positive or negative affect factors. daily with mean Groups on Measures of Physical Well-Being, of functional status. Global Appraisals and Health Measures The mean ratings for the two global well-being items, amount of exercise, and physical symptoms are shown in Table 2. There was a significant main effect for the ratings of one's life as a whole and expectations concerning the upcoming week: Participants in the gratitude group rated their life more favorably on these two items than did participants in the hassles group or events group (group means and Fs can be found in Table 2). The gratitude-group participants experienced fewer symptoms of physical illness than those in either of the other two groups. Lastly, there was a main effect for hours of exercise: People in the gratitude condition spent significantly more time exercising (nearly 1.5 hr more per week) than those in the hassles condition. ¹ These results were nearly identical to the results obtained when using principal components, although the maximum likelihood method is typi- cally preferred for such uses. Table 2 Comparisons of Groups by Measures of Well-Being, Study 1 the difference a measure of Conditions Participants were assigned to the gratitude con- completed one of two conditions: dition used in Studies 1 and 2 or a control condition in which participants the affect, well-being, and global appraisals only each day. There were a total 33 participants in the gratitude condition and 32 in control condition. Examples of gratitude inducing experiences were as to my boss for understanding my needs," "to my gar- variable and "to my paperboy being so reliable." of conditions follows: "grateful dener," for amounts effect seen in may Health Outcomes Procedure Participants were provided with a packet of 16 "daily experience rating forms." The first 2 days were considered practice days and were not counted in the observation period. As in Study 1, we eliminated from analyses the first report from the observation period, resulting in a total of 13 daily reports that were used in the analyses to be reported. The affect rating portion of the daily mood and health report was nearly identical to the weekly report used in Study 1, except that the wording was changed to reflect the different time frame ("please rate the extent to which you felt the following reactions during the day today") and minor changes were made in some of the emotion terms on the form. Participants were instructed that their ratings should reflect their appraisal of the day as a whole. They were asked to complete the form in the evening before going to sleep and to turn in the form at the next class period. Compliance with the procedure was high; no participants had to be eliminated for noncompliance. an indication that the interventions had differential two items that measured prosocial behavior. People were more likely to report having offered emotional support others, F(2, 154) = 2.98, p < .05, than those converted the in either the hassles group or the social comparison group. They on gratitude and were the interpret- When positive gratitude si- with not emotional effects Conditions Instructions for the gratitude and hassles conditions were identical to those used in Study 1. The third condition was a downward social com- parison condition. Participants were told the following: It is human nature to compare ourselves to others. We may be better off than others in some ways, and less fortunate than other people in other ways. Think about ways in which you are better off than others, things that you have that they don't, and write these down in the spaces below. F(1, 63) (2000) review of the emotional effects of social comparison indicates that pride and schadenfreude (pleasure at the misfortune of others) are two common reactions to a downward social comparison. There were 52 participants in the gratitude condition, 49 in the hassles condition, and 56 in the downward social comparison condition. 5.60* 3.09* 0.91 0.05 1.78 0.49 Health Behaviors The daily form asked participants to record the number of minutes they spent exercising strenuously, the number of minutes spent exercising moderately, the number of caffeine beverages consumed, the number of ****** = Participants from 1 = none and consisted of 65 people (44 women, 21 men) with they had exercised were recruited quality The original sample either congenital or adult-onset NMDs. Participants through and sleep a mailing list compiled by the University of California, Davis, Medical (Hoch et al., 2001). Center Neuromuscular Disease Clinic. They ranged in age from 22 to 77 majority Activities daily living. indicated (yes/no) whether they years, with a mean age of 49 years. The had one of three NMDS: had difficulties with any of of daily living: (a) walking across Post-polio, Charcot-Marie-Tooth, or Fascioscapulohumeral (see http://www. a small room, about NMD). Sixty-eight percent bathing or dressing; (c) eating; (d) lifting or carrying rehabinfo.net for more information of the objects; (e) stairs; (f) using the participants were college or postgraduate degrees, and to create an measure their mean income and $25,000. Little is known persons with NMDs (Abresch, the availability of this sample well-being toilet. These items were averaged of functional status. This six-item composite had an internal consistency reliability of a = .79. of well-being. To augment the self-reports administered the Positive Observer we and Negative to determine if the gratitude inter- Scales and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & in improving well-being in this population. Griffin, 1985) to the participant's spouse or significant the questionnaires according them to fill out to how they Procedure or significant other would respond. They were sent immediately following the 21-day period, and were asked Participants with a packet of 21 "daily experience These questionnaires forms" that were very similar to those used 2. They others provided with a set of instructions A total of They to fill out the form as close to the day and were told that their rating measure in confidentiality. in Study were also to us, and we paid spouses or significant and business reply envelopes for mailing measure. 26 observer reports were their forms directly back to the researchers. were instructed end of the as possible, to summarize the day to try and complete it as late in the to complete it accurately. It was stressed that for most in the early evening. The daily form took approxi- each evening. Participants were asked to once a week. Finally, they were told that should they forget ratings are meant as a whole. We encouraged them but before being too day as possible, sleepy of them, the optimal time will be Within scores on the three mately min to complete mail in adjectives (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) a form, that it is better to omit the form for that day rather than to to derive a of mean daily gratitude. These three were highly correlated, internal consistency adjectives with a mean filling it paid $20 they completed all out from memory. Participants were of the forms; $15 if they failed to complete all 21 forms. Virtually everyone reliability of a = .91. These daily mean gratitude ratings from to form a single composite across completed all 21 forms. were aggregated Other daily measures were aggregated into mean to Study 1, there were no differences in reported physical health complaints nor in time spent exercising, either me- vigorously or moderately, between the three groups. There were signifi- also no differences on the additional health behaviors that were and quality, aspirin, caffeine, alcohol < Note. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different, p < .05. * p < .05. itude than did the social comparison condition (M = 8.93, SD = 2.41), ps > .05. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were 0.88 for the on gratitude on positive affect In contrast that the standard mean difference between the gratitude and has- sles conditions was considerably larger in Study 2 (d = .88) than positive support There The gratitude condition appeared to increase positive affect during the 13-day period. People in the gratitude condition 0.24, SD = 0.75) reported significantly (p < .05) more 100% yields gratitude as a following p = .01. measured (sleep amount usage).³ Prosocial Behaviors on an important a sense community (Abresch et al., 1998). of integration Health behaviors. The daily form asked participants to record the Note. N 65. number of hours of sleep they received the night before, whether they had ***** *p<.05. Gratitude as a Mediator of the Interventions' Effects on Positive Affect Our theorizing has led us to suggest that gratitude, per se, may help to boost positive affect more generally, which is consistent with the facts that (a) the gratitude intervention elicited more and more positive affect than did the hassles condition, and positive affect were correlated, r(N=157) = .001. However, these bivariate associations do not shed was effects in the gratitude condition to problem, hassles condition. on whether Gratitude Positive Affect Mean daily gratitude was correlated p < .001, with mean affect, (N 65) 77, but not .43. Because, negative affect, r(N = 65) = .10, p = the gratitude intervention appeared to increase as mean mean tude as well daily positive measures themselves we examined affect, and because were significantly correlated, whether the effect of the gratitude intervention on daily positive of the gratitude intervention on the effect of the affect was mediated by the effect gratitude. that We also explored the possibility gratitude intervention on daily gratitude could be conceptualized as simply the by-product of Study 2, its on mean daily positive affect. As in we in the effects of these on gratitude and positive affect two interventions to correlation coefficients analysis. The correlation of to enhance the interpretability of our the intervention effect (i.e., gratitude = 65) = .37, p = .003, with the mean gratitude score pants in the control condition was lower than that for those in the the correlation the intervention Note. control) with gratitude was r(N negative sign indicating that for partici- gratitude condition. Similarly, of effect on positive affect was r(N = 65) = −.28, p = .026. When *p<.05. the on coefficient the gratitude induction. -.41) and the hypothesis that gratitude mediated of gratitude on on positive Unlike Study 1, however, the benefits did not physical symptomatology or suspect that this effect (ß = .85). extend to the somatic realm: No differences were observed in health behaviors. We (i.e., r = −.28) may have been due to the relatively short time frame of the study. habits in a 2-week period. of gratitude can People are unlikely to alter their exercise by the total of Study of the failure to replicate some the effects from we conducted a third study. Study 3 had the main purposes: (a) to extend the experimental 2, to 3 weeks to see if the benefits of a grateful over of time; (b) to a longer period base beyond healthy college students by with chronic disease; and (c) to examine benefits observed in Study 2 could be rep- licated in another daily study and, importantly, if these effects are observable within the context of the person's closest relationship. We thus expand our range of dependent variables to include spouse-rated affect and satisfaction with life. gratitude helped someone EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH quence of condition in frequency of helping others. Because Study 1 to Using a more intensive procedure this second study enabled also marginally more likely to have helped someone with a = .08, compared with people in the F(2, 154) = 1.72, p did not differ from the social comparison They three period from 2 weeks outlook broaden recruiting our participant an the affective could be observed life Condition any difficulties falling asleep they woke up sleep that extremely). rienced pain interfered each day affect. Days 1-21 the 21 of the gratitude condition experienced higher levels of positive affect during the 13-day period, and it appears plausible that this effect on positive affect generally was due to the intervention's effect on Grateful Hassles Events 5.05ª 4.67b 4.66b 5.48ª 5.11b 5.10b 3.03ª 3.75b 4.35a 3.74ª from Participants Data Reduction Effects of days. scores over the to of a to another, suggesting prosocial motivation as a conse- Data the (b) climbing overall reports variables, We conducted the gratitude rating as Manipulation GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING per se. They were also more likely to report having with personal problem or offered emotional adult sample each daily related to a Gratitude 9.78ª 0.24ª 0.00 Dependent Gratitude composite for the Positive affect factor into their Negative Table 4 Means, Standard 3 Descriptive statistics on these health variables are available from Robert A. Emmons. (gratitude, determine gratitude because EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH focusing single measure off 1, we = major events better Study 3.545 3.01b == As can reported getting score affect factor score 10.87, SD on the intervention effect and grati- d = .78. unique association (B = .78, p < .001) = 2.47) than did the control condition (M = 8.91, positive affect was regressed tude simultaneously, gratitude had a significant with positive affect .92). Conversely, when the intervention effect and positive affect simultaneously, 21-day positive and affect had a unique association but the intervention did not gratitude was regressed on and Negative Affect (B = .01, p = Group Differences on Positive As in Studies 1 and we calculated 2, mean significant with gratitude negative affect scores 29 other but the intervention effect also had affect ratings on = 0). For by submitting 21-day discrete p < .001), to a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with ob- significant effect gratitude (3: = –.17, p limin rotation (A this factor analysis, to increase our The indirect (mediated) effect of the intervention ratio, also included data from 32 participants affect is equal to the product of the correlation coefficient indexing who completed an experimental condition the intervention-gratitude relationship (r = –. -.37) and the regres- and 2, we sion coefficient indexing the so-called effect on positive cases-to-variables we that was not included in the present study. As in Studies 1 only also specified that two factors accounted of gratitude on pos- two factors These for 66% of itive affect (3 = .78). The product of these two equals first factor, -.29. coefficients The proportion of the total intervention-positive affect as- that is accounted for by the mediating sociation (i.e., r = –.28) .80 for typical negative effects of gratitude can therefore the quotient of no loadings greater be computed as the total effect. Multiplying than the indirect effect to .40 with any of factor, which value exceeding accounted for 26% of (-.29/-.28) by 100% yields a a measure of basis of the available evidence, we can conceptualize a complete mediator of the intervention's effect on the intervention on excited, positive affect. positive affect, with typical positive affects such as happy, and inspired loading greater than 30 with than .80 on this factor and no loadings Conversely, if we assume that the effects of greater any of the negative affects. The positive we effect lated, r(N = 96) = −.18, p > .05. the total effect of As can be seen in Table 4, gratitude (r -.37) that can be attributed to the indirect effects of higher scores on the positive factor (M = 0.35, affect than did the control condition (M = -0.25, 56. Also, gratitude were mediated by positive affect, would calculate the affect and negative affect factor scores were only modestly corre- indirect of the intervention on gratitude as [(-.28)(.73)] -.20. The proportion of the intervention on the gratitude intervention produced SD = 1.13) the intervention on positive affect therefore is -.20/-.37 = 55%. 0.98), F(1, Thus, as we found in Study 2, it appears reasonable to conclude the gratitude condition that gratitude = -0.26, intervention positive affect, 1.23), effects of the gratitude intervention that the strictly the by-product of the intervention's SD = 63) = 5.18, p = .026, d completely mediates the effects of the gratitude produced lower scores factor (M on but it on the negative affect SD = 0.73) than did the control condition (M = 0.26, SD = F(1, 63) = 4.37, p d = -.51. Thus, it appeared gratitude condition only fostered daily positive affect, but also, positive affect. reduced daily negative affect, during the 21-day study period. N = 65. ***** - Check is vs. the Life as whole Upcoming week Connected with others Dependent variable the night before (yes/no), and how refreshed morning (ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = physical pain they expe- how much (ranging from 1 = none and 6 and how = very severe) with what they wanted to accomplish each day (ranging participants indicated whether 5 = extremely). Finally, that day We on sleep duration older populations *p < .01. specifically by-product tude serves as Teigen, 8.03b -0.26⁰ 0.00 also indicated 21-day period. more positive spent exercising, Study 2, higher levels blessings were with a personal suggesting induction. Discussion Condition Social Hassles comparison F(2, 157) us on 21-Day Mean Affects, variable found GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING *p < .01. the of positive affect. sleep to a one-way the observe on what one (yes/no). gratitude across the 21-day follow-up period. for condition was F(1, 63) = 9.80, p < Table 4, the gratitude condition elicited positive daily more connected control condition (see Table in Study 2, daily grati- pation in the gratitude these two improvements in people's assessments a gratitude intervention that is consistent than comparison six activities survey, we aggregated gratitude Participants dependent control) whether and Results included predicts quality of Deviations, and Effects problem significant, with led ANOVA, variable on Health Measures be seen in Table 6, participants of sleep each more hours -0.06 in one's life, on ways with that a weekly for cultivating gratitude in number grateful Gratitude 10.87 0.35 -0.26 8.93 ab 0.00ab a is Effects on Subjective Well-Being Subjective appraisals. As in Study 1, participants itude condition reported considerably more satisfaction lives as whole, felt more about and felt optimism others factors, condition led to 5.54 5.70 5.77 Gratitude Study 3 the 21-day mean and two experimental as the two levels of the independent the conditions elicited differential were consistent with the effects the intervention and optimistic appraisals 379 on with 5). Therefore, F(2, 189) than In Study to reductions does 4.08* 2.81* 3.06* 3.76*** that items life in of these questionnaires to complete the were mailed directly back $10 for completing the obtained from each group. 381 the in to of Experimental Control Table 5 Comparisons of Groups by Measures of Subjective Well-Being, Study 3 in which others, or benefit listing 8.40* 3.28* NS a 8.91 -0.25 0.26 result of the think not grateful more general of beneficial for. People in other. motivator The daily manipulation powerful facilitating 4.80 5.20 5.07 Control 100%, were to We asked their spouse The main .01. As more gratitude 383 appear be expected we were the positive (3 = .73, small, statistically .044). one with a control self-guided daily gratitude exercises led focus also more likely to of positive affect. People report having helped someone offered emotional support motivation as a consequence of the gratitude This finding lends support to the hypothesis that grati- or to another, prosocial moral (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Em- mons, & Larson, 2001). were, on average, more in used in Study 1. Consequently, the attendant the weekly listing in contrast to Study 1, effect sizes for physical health symp- examined the effects the manipulation were larger in Study 2. Study 3 of the gratitude manipulation in a sample of with NMD. We found that random assignment to the grat- itude condition resulted in greater levels of positive affect, more adults sleep, better sleep quality, and greater optimism and a sense of connectedness to others. 3, we even found that the in negative affect, with correlational research affect (McCullough reporting less negative our mediational of Alternative Explanations effects substantial of the global well-being. upcoming participants is In with of one's life, more time fewer reported physical symptoms. In associated with on their Observer Reports of Well-Being 26 participants in the gratitude condition and in the condition, we computed the mean positive affect, negative the reports submitted by For the control affect, and life satisfaction on the basis of associated with al., their spouse or significant other. The participants in the gratitude 2002). Of most importance, analyses in Studies 2 the intervention on gratitude were condition were rated as higher in positive affect (3.68 vs. 3.31, p = and 3 revealed that the effects the gratitude induction and were not the more general effect of the intervention on .06) and life satisfaction (4.42 vs. 3.63, p < .02) than participants results of for negative the in the control condition; no difference was observed affect. These data indicate that the benefits of the gratitude listing, in comparison with a control group, transcend self-perceptions and are evident at least to significant others. or need did in the it appears that partici- and consistent of the Affect this quotient so, on the gratitude as emotion the gratitude condition night than did partici- were F(1, 63) 9.80****** 5.18* 4.37% in the that the were effects on Because of the dearth As in Study research reported in appraisals. As not previously demon- create increases easily imple- We do how long these effects last and whether they can be sustained over time. There does seem be evidence that some of Strengths and Limitations Discussion of experimental research on strategies for 1, the gratitude manipulation affected subjective life cultivating positive affect in daily life, the in Study 2, the gratitude manipulation appeared to these studies offer important contributions in positive affect, as well as reductions in negative strated. We believe that we have established a rather affect. Once again, mediational analyses showed that gratitude was mented strategy for improving one's level of well-being. uniquely responsible for the effect of the intervention on positive not know the gratitude intervention also appears to have improved people's amount of sleep and the quality of that sleep. the effects on well-being are apparent Furthermore, the effects on well-being (positive affect and life ratings in Study 3 indicate. Future studies the participants' spouse or signifi- to examine long-term consequences of counting blessings. cant other. However, similar to Study 2, there were no measurable One of the unique features of this research is that we randomly effects of the manipulation on other measures of physical health or assigned participants to conditions. The literature on personality health behaviors. and subjective well-being is almost entirely correlational in nature. the manipulation used in these three view, a rather minimal intervention. We to reflect, either once day for 2 affect. In addition, to others, as the observer will to be designed satisfaction) were apparent to It should be kept in mind that studies represents, in our asked participants a week once a they have to be grateful for and we expected happiness is that on well-being. Seen in that light, the contentment to were would seem that, on the basis of the results to General Discussion A prevailing sentiment in both classical and popular writings on to 3 weeks, on what an effective approach for maximizing one's this limited request to impact be consciously grateful for one's blessings. It results we obtained rather noteworthy. After all, there are a of these three exper- myriad of influences on well-being, from personality factors imental studies, there some truth to this wisdom. Our results genetic influences life events, and thus provide some important findings that have not been reported in the any one factor by empirical literature on happiness. do appear exist benefits potent. We to regularly focusing one's blessings. The advantages are most deep sense of gratefulness on hassles or complaints, instill the virtue of gratitude as with simply reflecting the Nevertheless, we believe that given is to chronic and temporary itself would not to be particularly There to are under no illusion able to inculcate a on as a fundamental life orientation or to pronounced when compared with a focus a brief manipulation. yet are still apparent in comparison grat- with their week, was associated contrasting conditions. believes 385 F(1, 63) 13.77** 5.38* 11.67*** one group. in Studies 2 and 3, gratitude than was ments and the empirical intentional grateful of of well-being. ing, 1997) is work concerning gratitude, that an for the self and to lead to negative focus is one form cognitive appraisal of & Van Yperen, 1990). The contribution one's life circumstances with the ability to impact long-term levels mental processes for eliciting In each study, inducing a of gratefulness gratitude exercises led to some emotional, interpersonal benefits. Unfortunately, not all findings replicated the failure to replicate state through the of further study. self-guided physical, or When considering the mean effect sizes, difference between the gratitude and hassles conditions became more pronounced in across the three studies. With respect to the Study 2, the first daily study. This indicates focus that, relative to a an effective strategy for producing reliably higher exercise finding, we suspect that too short a on complaints, period write, on a daily basis, alter such they are grateful. 2-3 weeks is simply to observe an effect. People are unlikely to levels of pleasant affect is for people to exercise patterns within a short period of time. about those aspects of their lives for which We are confident that this was a real effect Study 1, and did not Moreover, the participants in the gratitude condition were more simply reflect self-perceptions. Studies have found that self-reports likely to have offered others emotional support, suggesting that not of exercise correlate reliably with physical fitness and to all benefits were solely intrapsychic. rate (Brown, 1991). in levels physiological indices such as resting heart health complaints, reflecting as they do stable predis- (Wangby, 2000) would also be unlikely to shift signifi- within a short time Is it possible to simply attribute the of the intervention to be operating as the results were symptomatology in Study 2 (roughly half of mean the observed was far less span. Other methodological factors may well. Inspection of mean levels of symptom re- demand characteristics? If due to demand charac- porting in the first two studies revealed extremely low levels of teristics, then ratings on the outcome variables should have been the levels affected uniformly. However, of range could have attenu- Those in the gratitude condition ated the effects of the experimental manipulation in the daily advantages other conditions, did exhibit were rather selective. for example, people reported in Study 1). This restriction predictable. always show over the and they time frames (as There were clearly to the study. Aggregating symptoms reports over longer in Study 1) may reveal more reliable effects. effect. In Study 3, in the gratitude condition did not feel less pain or have fewer difficulties in activities of daily Sizes living. Attempts were also made by us to conceal We hypothesized on perceives would have not been privy to oneself conditions. They not informed that Relative Magnitude of the Effect the hypothesis in the studies. Participants were unaware that they were participating that reflecting ways in which one in a random design experiment, and as being better off than others would have less of a the various experimental beneficial effect on well-being than would consciously counting it was a research study on gratitude one's blessings. Somewhat contrary expectations, we did of the social comparison condition the demands not find that the downward social comparison group experienced appear similar yet the effect of the gratitude manipulation even stronger, and well-being. The addition to our in Study 2, where was statistically significantly lower levels of com- also argues against a simple pared with demand alternative. It might be also wondered whether the same pattern would have been on the positives parison reported only marginally lower levels experiential state that overlaps yet is thinking." We did not that the positive affect as group. Similarly, the social com- of grateful observed if we had simply asked people to dwell emotions (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) than did partici- in their lives or had them otherwise engage in happy thinking. pants in the gratitude condition. However, all of the mean differ- Research literature and conceptual analyses of gratitude suggest ences were in the predicted direction, with the downward social that gratitude is an comparison condition falling between the gratitude and hassles distinct from simply "positive all of the positive moods rated. Studies have grateful group felt less angry, depressed, that downward social comparison is an effective states as a global positivity hypothesis coping strategy (Stanton, Danoff-Burg, in the sense that gratitude is a moral affect motivates prosocial been suggested as a possible route to gratitude, which behavior, one would anticipate different consequences or action might increase tendencies for gratitude as opposed to happiness. Indeed, we did their levels of thankfulness (Miller, 1995). Reflecting on the pos- find in Study 2 that people in the gratitude condition were signif- downward icantly more likely to have helped another conditions on almost sad, or other unpleasant documented might suggest. Furthermore, & Cameron, 1999) and it that has even under certain circumstances and for certain people, itive aspects of one's life, a process common to both the with a personal problem social those in the comparison and gratitude conditions, has benefits when compared with compared with a focus on hassles and complaints. Given that Gratitude and Well-Being: An Upward Spiral? gratitude is a positive affective state that covaries with other et manipulation Insofar that it is not possible to terms positive emotions (Mayer al., 1991), it would be surprising if a that elevated positive affect would leave grateful emotions untouched. Yet, gratitude appears to be the more potent affect. Because of its of methodological account for our results in what mechanisms, psychological or why participants in the gratitude condi- of well-being than those in elicitor of pleasant potential for eliciting otherwise, might explain 2000), generally evidenced higher levels pride and/or envy (Smith, we cannot social comparison as a general strategy for inducing feelings direct routes are available. of that Fredrickson's (1998, recommend downward tion the comparison conditions? We believe social 2000) broaden and build model of positive emotions have also been shown to have negative implications especially helpful here. She has argued gratitude when more Downward may be comparisons that positive emotions find this the previous theoretical argu- a finding that trait pattern did not what advantages limits with affect (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, of comparison-based judg- gratitude (e.g., counterfactual think- an intriguing research question that is in need et 387 378 1977, p. 316). The benefit, gift, or personal gain might be material or nonmaterial (e.g., emotional or spiritual). As an emotion, gratitude is an attribution-dependent state (Weiner, 1985) that results from a two-step cognitive process: (a) recognizing that one has obtained a positive outcome, and (b) recognizing that there is an external source for this positive out- come. Lazarus and Lazarus (1994) argued that gratitude is one of the "empathic emotions" whose roots lie in the capacity to empa- thize with others. The core relational theme associated with grat- itude is recognition or appreciation of an altruistic gift. Gratitude is a complex state that belongs to the category of affective- cognitive conditions (Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987) in which both affect and cognition are predominant-meaning components of the term. There are reasons to believe that experiences of gratitude might be associated perhaps even in a causal fashion-with happiness and well-being. Researchers, writers, and practitioners have all speculated that gratitude possesses happiness-bestowing proper- ties. Chesterton (1924) contended that "gratitude produced... the most purely joyful moments that have been known to man" (p. 114). Several theorists and researchers (e.g., Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Mayer, Salovey, Gomberg-Kaufman, & Blainey, 1991; Or- tony, Clore, & Collins, 1986; Weiner, 1985) have noted that gratitude typically has a positive emotional valence. Initial research suggests that gratitude is a moderately pleasant and activating emotion. Research has shown that gratitude is a pleasant state and is linked with positive emotions including con- tentment (Walker & Pitts, 1998), happiness, pride, and hope (Overwalle, Mervielde, & De Schuyter, 1995). In research on the scaling of emotion terms, gratitude tends to load on pleasantness and activation factors (Mayer et al., 1991; Reisenzein, 1994). In an empirically derived taxonomy of emotion terms, gratitude was clustered in a category of positive, interpersonal feelings that included admiration, respect, trust and regard (Storm & Storm, 1987). In similarity judgments of emotions, thankfulness is rated as highly similar to joy and contentment, and as highly dissimilar to contempt, hate, and jealousy (Schimmack & Reisenzein, 1997). Gratitude was 1 of 50 emotion terms included in Davitz's (1969) study of the structure of emotional meaning. Forty subjects rated the relevance of over 500 descriptive statements designed to cap- ture various elements of emotional experiences. Twelve clusters of emotion meaning were identified, on four of which gratitude loaded highly: activation, comfort/harmony, moving toward oth- ers, and enhancement/expansion of self. In addition to its merit as an intrinsically rewarding state, gratitude may lead to other posi- tive subjective experiences. In a recent Gallup (1998) survey of American teens and adults, over 90% of respondents indicated that expressing gratitude helped them to feel "extremely happy" or "somewhat happy." Lastly, McCullough et al. (2002) found that dispositional gratitude was related to, but distinct from, trait mea- sures of positive affect, vitality, optimism, envy, depression, and anxiety. Although gratitude overlaps with other positive feelings, it also possesses a unique pattern of appraisals that distinguishes it from happiness (Weiner, 1985). benevolence of others, we hypothesize that those in the gratitude- focused group would show enhanced psychosocial functioning relative to persons in the hassles and life events groups (Study 1), hassles and downward social comparison groups (Study 2), and to a true control group (Study 3). In the first two studies the partic- ipants are college students, whereas in Study 3 we recruited adults with congenital and adult-onset neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) to increase the potential generalizability of the results. Although we believe we have sketched a compelling case for the benefit conferring effect of gratitude, in our view this relationship is neither inevitable nor unequivocal. Although gratitude as an emotion has been shown to covary with other positive affective states (Mayer et al., 1991) and has generally been portrayed as a virtue in the moral philosophy literature, attention has also been drawn to its negative side. To be grateful means to allow oneself to be placed in the position of a recipient to feel indebted and aware of one's dependence on others. Gratitude has an obligatory aspect. People are expected to repay kindnesses. Most people experience indebtedness as an unpleasant and aversive psycholog- ical state (Greenberg & Westcott, 1983). Thus, making people aware of the things in their lives to be grateful for might increase their recognition of the need to reciprocate, and people may resent these obligations and even report strong negative feelings toward their benefactors, even as extreme as hatred (Elster, 1999). Another reason why our predictions are not obvious has to do with the observation that people are characterized by baseline levels of happiness. Set-point theory (Diener & Diener, 1996; Lykken, 1999) maintains that people's long-term levels of happi- ness are relatively stable and vary only slightly around genetically endowed levels. The degree to which well-being evaluations can be altered through short-term psychological interventions and sus- tained over time remains to be seen. If there are chronic baseline levels of affect, then raising the level of affect beyond a person's set point may be difficult. Thus, we believe this research represents a particularly strong test of the happiness-inducing potential of gratitude. If it is possible to demonstrate that there are significant effects of a brief intervention to induce gratitude, then the potential for a longer, more sustained effort would exist. 380 Participants The sample consisted of 201 undergraduate participants (147 women, 54 men) enrolled in a health psychology class in a large, public university. They participated to fulfill the experiential learning component of the course. Of these, 9 were dropped from data analysis because of missing or incomplete data, leaving a total of 192 participants. Students were given an alternative of roughly equal time commitment to not participating in the research; only one opted for the alternative. Procedure At the beginning of the academic quarter, participants were given a packet of 10 weekly reports. The packets were organized into three different clusters, representing the three experimental conditions, and were randomly distributed during the second class session. In the gratitude condition, participants were provided with the following instructions: appetite, coughing/sore throat, or other. Space was also provided for participants to write in any unlisted symptoms they may have experienced. A symptom measure was created by summing the 13 items within each weekly report. We have used this measure in previous research and it is a reliable and valid index of self-perceived health status (Elliot & Sheldon, 1998; Emmons, 1992; Pennebaker, 1982). Reactions to aid. As one additional way to measure grateful emotions in daily life, we assessed various reactions to help-giving. This seemed particularly appropriate given that the protypical situation in which grati- tude is felt is in response to benefits provided. On the weekly form, participants were asked to indicate how they had coped with the most serious problem with which they were concerned during the week. Among the coping options listed, the most relevant ones pertinent to this study were as follows: accepted sympathy from someone, talked to someone about how they were feeling, or received concrete help or advice from someone. If they answered "yes" to any of these, they were then asked to rate how they felt toward the person who provided the assistance using the following adjectives: grateful, annoyed, embarrassed, understood, sur- prised, glad, frustrated, and appreciative. These ratings were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. We subsequently summed grateful, appreciative, understood, and glad into a composite (α = .92). Gratitude, Happiness, and Well-Being: Mechanisms of Association Global appraisals. We included two questions on the weekly form to assess both concurrent and prospective overall well-being. Participants were asked to rate how they felt about their life as a whole during the week, on a -3 to +3 scale, anchored with the adjectives terrible and delighted (modeled after Andrews & Withey, 1976). A second question asked participants to rate their expectations for the upcoming week, also on a -3 to +3 scale, with the endpoints labeled pessimistic, expect the worst and optimistic, expect the best. the upcoming week (r Data Reduction For each of the 9 weeks during which follow-up surveys were collected, we aggregated people's scores on the three adjectives related to gratitude (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) to derive a single measure of mean weekly gratitude. These three adjectives were highly correlated, with internal consistency reliability (Cron- bach's alpha) estimates ranging from .86 to .92. These three-item composites were aggregated to form a single 9-week composite measure of gratitude. Similar 9-week composites were created for each of the 27 discrete affects. We omitted the first weekly report because the well-being items on the report were answered prior to the gratitude listing. We also calculated mean 9-week composites of positive and negative affect by submitting the 9-week composites of the 27 discrete affects to a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation (A = 0).¹ Five factors were extracted with ei- genvalues greater than 1.0, but eigenvalues dropped precipitously from the second to the third factor (from 7.4 to 1.3), so we concluded that only two factors were necessary to describe the interrelations among the 27 9-week composite affects. Therefore, we reconducted the factor analysis, specifying that only two fac- tors be extracted. These two factors accounted for 59% of the variance in the 27 9-week composite affects. The first factor, which accounted for 33% of the variance, was clearly a measure of positive affect, with all positive affects loading greater than .50 on this factor and no loadings greater than .30 with any of the negative Dependent variable Gratitude composite Positive affect factor Negative affect factor 382 There appeared to be some positive benefits for well-being to the gratitude condition in Study 1. Relative to the specific hassles and life events groups, participants in the gratitude condi- tion felt better about their lives as a whole, and were more optimistic regarding their expectations for the upcoming week. They reported fewer physical complaints and reported spending significantly more time exercising. Yet the gratitude condition did not appear to influence global positive or negative affect. Study 1 was limited in that participants were asked to complete only one report per week. The effects on emotional well-being might be more pronounced with a more intensive intervention. To introduce a stronger manipulation, we designed a second study. This second study was similar in most respects to Study 1 except that (a) diaries were kept on a daily basis over a 2-week period, (b) we replaced the life events group with a downward social comparison focused group, and (c) we included a wider range of well-being outcomes than in Study 1. taken. Because of attempted to decompose Table 1 Effects of Experimental Condition on 9-Week Mean Affects, Study 1 exercise. Strenuous exercise up a sweat and your heart laps, dancing). exhausting" lifting weights). they Data Reduction = Within each daily Reactions to Aid Grateful emotions in response to aid giving were significantly associated with higher ratings of joy and happiness² aggregated over the 9-week period (rs = 41 and 42, respectively, p < .01). These correlations were computed across all three conditions. The gratitude variable was also associated with more favorable life Life as whole Dependent variable appraisals (r .22, p < .01) and with more optimism concerning Upcoming week = 24, p < .01). In contrast, feeling Physical symptoms Hours of exercise annoyed, embarrassed, surprised, or frustrated in response to aid a single composite As in Study 1, we negative affect scores alcoholic beverages consumed, and the number of aspirins or Moderate (e.g., biking, We also the Prosocial Behaviors We asked participants to indicate, each day, if with a problem or offered someone emotional swered in a simple "yes" or "no" to each. Manipulation the variance We conducted gratitude rating as completely reasonably bore no relationship with these outcome measures. These data Note. N = 192. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different, indicate that grateful responses to help-giving are associated with more favorable overall evaluations of well-being. p < .05. *p < .05. of sleep received on a scale from 1 (very sound or restful) to 5 (very restless). positive ability 8.03, The positive this diator (gratitude) cantly related When 384 adjectives related to derive a adjectives were highly correlated, with internal consistency reli- ability (Cronbach's alpha) ranging from .84 to .90. These daily mean gratitude ratings were aggregated to form Participants The original sample consisted of 166 undergraduate participants (125 We included this condition to have a condition that appeared to be positive women, 41 men) enrolled in a health psychology class in a large, public on the surface (to attempt to control for demand characteristics) but in university. They participated to fulfill the experiential learning component reality might lead to different outcomes than the gratitude focus. Smith's of the course. Nine of the subjects were eventually eliminated for failing to provide complete data, leaving a total of 157. grateful emotion condition (but not the effect when can fill out affect, and affects. The second factor, of clearly a measure loading greater than .50 the variance, was of the negative affects no loadings greater Despite our use of an oblique rotation method, and negative affect factor than 30 with any of the 157) = .01, p > .05. also by submitting the ratings to a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation (A in Study 1, we specified that = 0; see Footnote 1). As only two factors be extracted. These factors accounted for 58% of factor, which measure of than .50 on the negative in accounted limited our mediational involved in difference in 5 their forms affect The correlation of about factors (M = SD 2 Rather than correlate the gratitude composite with each of the separate Note. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different, p < .05. affects, we chose the two clearest markers of pleasant affect, happiness and *p<.05. joy. = SD hassles conditions elicited significantly Conversely, levels of the independent variable to determine conditions 13-day follow-up 13-day mean gratitude and affect factors appear in Table 154) 8.40, affect had a significant p < .001), but the .001). factor elicited differential The connected connected). Check Subjective 386 * = the between-group exercise finding into more specific types of the exercise variable was defined as "hard exercise where you work beats fast" (e.g., aerobics, running, swimming exercise was defined easy swimming, using an exercise machine, asked participants to record previous night and to the gratitude the effects to a one-way ANOVA, with the dependent variable and the tal conditions (gratitude, hassles, social comparison) = period. a 5-point 5 = extremely). Study 1 Method quality of life Gratitude affecting Seyden, & Wineinger, provided us with vention could be effective = 2.55), mediates mediational Discussion Results diates the effect of the intervention on the Because the gratitude and more the downward analyses the 10.16ª 0.18 0.07 were appraisals week) that we used they felt positive (B = .06, p the intervention effect and positive when of the presumed conclude that the presumed Similarly, positions cantly Study 2 Method positive a significant the According to Baron and Kenny be present when the following intervention has presumed gratitude); (b) intervention has a significant criterion variable (i.e., positive affect); and (c) the presumed and (positive affect) are affect indexing regression coefficient indexing positive in Table 6 Comparisons Study 3 - Physical pain Pain interference estimates across affect, controlling for of Note. N 65. *p<.05. Exercise (yes/no) Functional status the mean difference between the gratitude and hassles conditions, 0.40 for the mean difference between the gratitude and social compar- ison conditions, and 0.39 for the mean difference between the social comparison and hassles conditions. Thus, relative to the survey, we aggregated scores on the three to gratitude (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) social comparison condition, the gratitude and hassles conditions single measure of mean daily gratitude. These three had nearly equal and opposite effects (i.e., SD = .40 and -.39, respectively) on daily levels of gratitude. It is interesting to note Results negative affect, with affects such as bitter, habitual is = 2.18), p < .05. Neither the be extracted. the from Days 13 group hassles) with gratitude negative sign indicating that the hassles condition. The correlation positive affect was r(N: 101) = .28, affect was regressed on the intervention effect = p < .01. multaneously, gratitude had a significant (3 = .85, p < .31). Conversely, = the the intervention provided Dependent variable Hassles unique intervention -0.13 -0.14 Daily Experience Daily affect. Each had experienced each of and appreciative, as well scale (ranging Likert-type the days. calculated mean 13-day 27 and Hours of sleep How refreshed on waking p = 9.08⁰ indirect (mediated) be computed as the product of the the intervention-gratitude relationship hassles conditions. of these two interventions affect correlation coefficients to enhance of our mediational analysis. the intervention effect (i.e., gratitude vs. was r(N = 101) = -.41, p<.001, with the score was lower in the mean gratitude of the intervention effect on 1998), married, 42% had was between quality effect of monitoring limited scores were virtually orthogonal, r(N intervention positive more generally. Moreover, the bivariate significant, F(2, = A associations do not test the possibility that the effects of the revealed that the gratitude condition elicited significantly more intervention on gratitude were the by-product of the more general gratitude (M 9.78, SD 1.80) than did the hassles condition effects of the interventions on positive affect. To examine these (M = the gratitude nor the latter hypotheses explicitly requires mediational analyses (e.g., different amounts of grat- Baron & Kenny, 1986). < .001. the = .041, not and a unique opportunity on criterion effect of the intervention the positive .001), completely tervention on affect, but it does appear of the gratitude intervention on grateful emotion as the by-product of the tualized strictly eral effects on positive affect. effect of 2-14 of -0.03 0.07 = EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH whether amounts of gratitude across and standard association effect did Events F(2, 193) 9.58ab when Study 3 Method a GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING of negative affect, they had helped someone support. These were an- which accounted The product these two coefficients is -.35. The proportion of affect association the total intervention-positive that is accounted for by the mediating effects therefore be computed as the indirect effect effect quotient (i.e., -.35/-.28). Multiplying a value exceeding 100%, so we can conceptualize of the intervention's effect on positive affect. complete mediator if we assume that the of the intervention on gratitude were mediated by positive affect, indirect effect we would calculate the as [(-.28)(.77)] = on gratitude of the intervention - .22. The proportion of the total effect of the intervention be attributed gratitude (r= = .41) that can the intervention on positive that it is reasonable affect, therefore, Thus, it appears to the effects of (1986, p. 1177), mediation three conditions two 27 13-day mean affect ratings. The first for 37% of the variance, was clearly a positive affect (attentive, determined, energetic, enthusiastic, ex- with all positive affects loading greater cited, interested, joyful, strong) than did participants in the hassles no loadings greater than group (M = -0.26, SD 0.94). The social comparison group (M = 0.00, SD = 1.16) was not significantly (p > .05) different from either the gratitude (p = .46) or hassles (p = .39) conditions. In contrast, there was little strong indication that the interventions had differential effects on negative affect during the 13-day period, F(2, 154) = 0.25, p = .78. affect but $15,000 life in thus is the gratitude-outlook this is controlled. on the criterion disappears mediator is controlled, one may mediator completely me- on the so-called the intervention item because the the variance, effects 7.58 3.04 2.96 2.30 1.60 1.63 EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH appeared to create more than did the hassles social comparison condition), we as the number of hours Gratitude composite rate the quality of that sleep Positive affect factor Negative affect factor loadings greater than sad, and afraid, and affects. the only to participants who were We GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING as the three gratitude and (b) gratitude the three the .80, p means the light on the stronger hypothesis that the gratitude intervention's the 13-day mean effects were responsible for the effects of the inter- 3. The main effect for condition was vention post hoc Scheffé's test Gratitude positive the 13-day mean three experimen- as "exercise that is not Dependent variable .30 with to deviations of positive and negative the intervention did gratitude was regressed on affect simultaneously, positive of any for 20% with all and affects. positive affect criterion. this factor the gratitude not there were pants in the control condition. However, no other differences in or on the six-item measure reported toms 4.69* 1.73 1.16 the intervention the effect are met: (a) an mediator Form as specific affects not at all to day, participants indicated the extent to which they 32 discrete affects (including grateful, thankful, used in Studies 1 and 2) on from 1= very slightly or well-being. Participants completed as a whole and optimism about the upcoming 2. In addition, participants indicated how with others (where and +3 = well- the same two global (regarding life in Study -3= isolated We included this issue in people with NMD unique association with gratitude well (B = the variance 29 21-day mean affect ratings. which accounted for 40% of the variance, was clearly EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH and if pain relievers Table 3 in Study 1, we Effects of Experimental Condition on 13-Day Mean Affects, Study 2 (i.e., effect on the correlation (r= in Study 1 (d = .56), suggesting that the daily tasks completed in positive and Study 2 were, on average, more potent in facilitating and inhibiting other 13-day affect gratitude than they were when completed on a more infrequent, weekly basis. general effect converted divided by The second was clearly intervention's ( indirect is .22/-.41 = 54%. conclude that gratitude 7.06 2.58 3.20 2.35 1.72 1.58 Savoring the Positive Circumstances of Life A grateful response to life circumstances may be an adaptive psychological strategy and an important process by which people positively interpret everyday experiences. The ability to notice, appreciate, and savor the elements of one's life has been viewed as a crucial determinant of well-being (Bryant, 1989; Janoff-Bulman & Berger, 2000; Langston, 1994). Frijda (1988) stated that "adap- tation to satisfaction can be counteracted by constantly being aware of how fortunate one's condition is and how it could have been otherwise, or actually was otherwise before. . . enduring happiness seems possible, and it can be understood theoretically" (p. 354). The personal commitment to invest psychic energy in develop- ing a personal schema, outlook, or worldview of one's life as a "gift" or one's very self as being "gifted" holds considerable sway from the standpoint of achieving optimal psychological function- ing. Indeed, numerous groups have absorbed this insight. For example, many religiously oriented events such as reflection days or scheduled week-long retreats have as a recurring theme the idea of a gift (e.g., those influenced by Jesuit spirituality) as do many self-help groups and organizations (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous). The regular practice of grateful thinking, then, should lead to enhanced psychological and social functioning. - Gratitude and Well-Being: Correlation or Causality? Foundationally, research on gratitude and well-being must ad- dress the issue of whether gratitude whether in the context of savoring positive life circumstances, coping with negative life circumstances, or trying to counteract negative emotions is a cause of well-being, per se, or merely a moderately positive and active emotion that people with high well-being frequently expe- rience. Of course, the most direct and unambiguous way to deter- mine whether gratitude exerts a causal effect on happiness and well-being would be in the context of experimental studies in which gratitude was manipulated and its effects on measures of well-being were observed. Control Purpose of the Present Studies In the spirit of understanding the link between gratitude and happiness, the purpose of this research is to experimentally inves- tigate the effects of a "grateful outlook" on psychological and physical well-being. More specifically, we address whether rela- tive to focusing on complaints or on neutral life events, a focus on "counting one's blessings" leads to enhanced psychological and physical functioning. Drawing together theoretical statements, popular beliefs, and previous empirical findings, we predict that self-guided exercises designed to induce a state of gratitude will lead to heightened well-being over time, relative to a focus on hassles, downward social comparisons, or neutral life events. In three studies, we randomly assigned participants to different ex- perimental conditions and then had them keep daily or weekly records of their positive and negative affect, coping behaviors, health behaviors, physical symptoms, and overall life appraisals. Because we are inducing people to dwell on the favorable, to appreciate the benefits that others provide, and hence reflect on the .19, as a Mediator of the Interventions' Effects on = The There are many things in our lives, both large and small, that we might be grateful about. Think back over the past week and write down on the lines below up to five things in your life that you are grateful or thankful for. Examples of gratitude-inducing experiences listed by participants were as follows: "waking up this morning," "the generosity of friends," "to God for giving me determination," "for wonderful parents," "to the Lord for just another day," and "to the Rolling Stones." In the hassles condition, they were told the following: (vs. hassles) in- that the effects can be concep- more gen- Hassles are irritants-things that annoy or bother you. They occur in various domains of life, including relationships, work, school, hous- ing, finances, health, and so forth. Think back over today and, on the lines below, list up to five hassles that occurred in your life. Examples of hassles listed by participants were as follows: "hard to find parking," "messy kitchen no one will clean," "finances depleting quickly," "having a horrible test in health psychology," "stupid people driving," and "doing a favor for friend who didn't appreciate it." In the events condition, they were asked the following: .77, p What were some of the events or circumstances that affected you in the past week? Think back over the past week and write down on the lines below the five events that had an impact on you. GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING Examples of events generated by participants were "talked to a doctor about medical school," "learned CPR," "cleaned out my shoe closet," "flew back to Sacramento," and "attended Whole Earth Festival." Subsequent coding of these events as positive, negative, or neutral revealed that 40% were rated as pleasant, 30% as unpleasant, and 30% as neutral. Given this balance, it would appear that we were successful in creating a reasonably neutral control condition. There were a total of 65 participants in the gratitude condition, 64 in the hassles group, and 67 in the events condition. These separate instructions were written on the weekly report, followed by five blank lines for participants to list blessings, hassles, or life events. To reduce potential experimental demand, the listing of gratitudes, hassles, or life events was made at the end of each weekly report following the other ratings. Reports were handed in at Monday's class to ensure com- pliance. If participants were unable to turn in the form Monday morning, they were instructed to turn them in as soon thereafter as possible. After the forms were passed out, each set of ratings were described to participants and any questions they had concerning the procedure were answered. = Well-Being Ratings In addition to the listing of blessings, hassles, or life events, the weekly form included ratings of mood, physical symptoms, reactions to social support received, estimated amount of time spent exercising, and two global life appraisal questions. The 30 affect terms were as follows: interested, distressed, excited, alert, irritable, sad, stressed, ashamed, happy, grateful, tired, upset, strong, nervous, guilty, joyful, determined, thankful, calm, attentive, forgiving, hostile, energetic, hopeful, enthusias- tic, active, afraid, proud, appreciative, and angry. Items were chosen on the basis of being commonly occurring affective states (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) as well as specific gratitude-related (thankful, apprecia- tive) feelings. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they have experienced each feeling during the past week on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). as Physical symptoms. We assessed physical symptoms by having par- ticipants check off whether they had experienced any of the following sensations: headaches, faintness/dizziness, stomachache/pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, acne/skin irritation, runny/congested nose, stiff or sore muscles, stomach upset/nausea, irritable bowels, hot or cold spells, poor effects of affects. The second factor, which accounted for 26% of the vari- ance, was clearly a measure of negative affect, with all of the negative affects loading greater than 60 on this factor and no loadings greater than .30 with any of the positive affects. Despite our use of an oblique rotation method, the positive affect and negative affect factor scores were virtually orthogonal, (N 192) = .04, p > .05. = Manipulation Check We conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the 9-week mean gratitude rating as the dependent variable and the three experimental conditions (gratitude, hassles, events) as the three levels of the independent variable to determine whether the three conditions elicited differential amounts of gratitude across the 9-week follow-up period. The means and standard deviations of the 9-week composite gratitude and the 9-week composite positive and negative affect factors appear in Table 1. The main effect for condition was significant, F(2, 189) = 4.69, p = .01. A post hoc Scheffé's test revealed that the gratitude condition elicited more gratitude (M = 10.16, SD 1.93) than did the hassles condition (M = 9.08, SD = 1.95), p < .05. Neither the gratitude nor the hassles conditions elicited significantly different amounts of gratitude than did the events condition (M = 9.58, SD = 2.15), ps > .05. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were 0.56 for the mean differ- ence between the gratitude and hassles conditions, 0.28 for the mean difference between the gratitude and neutral events condi- tions, and 0.24 for the mean difference between the neutral events and hassles conditions. Thus, relative to the neutral events condi- tion, the gratitude and hassles conditions had nearly equal and opposite effects (i.e., SD = 24 and 28, respectively) on daily levels of gratitude. However, participants in the gratitude condition did not differ significantly from participants in the hassles or events condition on either the positive or negative affect factors. daily with mean Groups on Measures of Physical Well-Being, of functional status. Global Appraisals and Health Measures The mean ratings for the two global well-being items, amount of exercise, and physical symptoms are shown in Table 2. There was a significant main effect for the ratings of one's life as a whole and expectations concerning the upcoming week: Participants in the gratitude group rated their life more favorably on these two items than did participants in the hassles group or events group (group means and Fs can be found in Table 2). The gratitude-group participants experienced fewer symptoms of physical illness than those in either of the other two groups. Lastly, there was a main effect for hours of exercise: People in the gratitude condition spent significantly more time exercising (nearly 1.5 hr more per week) than those in the hassles condition. ¹ These results were nearly identical to the results obtained when using principal components, although the maximum likelihood method is typi- cally preferred for such uses. Table 2 Comparisons of Groups by Measures of Well-Being, Study 1 the difference a measure of Conditions Participants were assigned to the gratitude con- completed one of two conditions: dition used in Studies 1 and 2 or a control condition in which participants the affect, well-being, and global appraisals only each day. There were a total 33 participants in the gratitude condition and 32 in control condition. Examples of gratitude inducing experiences were as to my boss for understanding my needs," "to my gar- variable and "to my paperboy being so reliable." of conditions follows: "grateful dener," for amounts effect seen in may Health Outcomes Procedure Participants were provided with a packet of 16 "daily experience rating forms." The first 2 days were considered practice days and were not counted in the observation period. As in Study 1, we eliminated from analyses the first report from the observation period, resulting in a total of 13 daily reports that were used in the analyses to be reported. The affect rating portion of the daily mood and health report was nearly identical to the weekly report used in Study 1, except that the wording was changed to reflect the different time frame ("please rate the extent to which you felt the following reactions during the day today") and minor changes were made in some of the emotion terms on the form. Participants were instructed that their ratings should reflect their appraisal of the day as a whole. They were asked to complete the form in the evening before going to sleep and to turn in the form at the next class period. Compliance with the procedure was high; no participants had to be eliminated for noncompliance. an indication that the interventions had differential two items that measured prosocial behavior. People were more likely to report having offered emotional support others, F(2, 154) = 2.98, p < .05, than those converted the in either the hassles group or the social comparison group. They on gratitude and were the interpret- When positive gratitude si- with not emotional effects Conditions Instructions for the gratitude and hassles conditions were identical to those used in Study 1. The third condition was a downward social com- parison condition. Participants were told the following: It is human nature to compare ourselves to others. We may be better off than others in some ways, and less fortunate than other people in other ways. Think about ways in which you are better off than others, things that you have that they don't, and write these down in the spaces below. F(1, 63) (2000) review of the emotional effects of social comparison indicates that pride and schadenfreude (pleasure at the misfortune of others) are two common reactions to a downward social comparison. There were 52 participants in the gratitude condition, 49 in the hassles condition, and 56 in the downward social comparison condition. 5.60* 3.09* 0.91 0.05 1.78 0.49 Health Behaviors The daily form asked participants to record the number of minutes they spent exercising strenuously, the number of minutes spent exercising moderately, the number of caffeine beverages consumed, the number of ****** = Participants from 1 = none and consisted of 65 people (44 women, 21 men) with they had exercised were recruited quality The original sample either congenital or adult-onset NMDs. Participants through and sleep a mailing list compiled by the University of California, Davis, Medical (Hoch et al., 2001). Center Neuromuscular Disease Clinic. They ranged in age from 22 to 77 majority Activities daily living. indicated (yes/no) whether they years, with a mean age of 49 years. The had one of three NMDS: had difficulties with any of of daily living: (a) walking across Post-polio, Charcot-Marie-Tooth, or Fascioscapulohumeral (see http://www. a small room, about NMD). Sixty-eight percent bathing or dressing; (c) eating; (d) lifting or carrying rehabinfo.net for more information of the objects; (e) stairs; (f) using the participants were college or postgraduate degrees, and to create an measure their mean income and $25,000. Little is known persons with NMDs (Abresch, the availability of this sample well-being toilet. These items were averaged of functional status. This six-item composite had an internal consistency reliability of a = .79. of well-being. To augment the self-reports administered the Positive Observer we and Negative to determine if the gratitude inter- Scales and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & in improving well-being in this population. Griffin, 1985) to the participant's spouse or significant the questionnaires according them to fill out to how they Procedure or significant other would respond. They were sent immediately following the 21-day period, and were asked Participants with a packet of 21 "daily experience These questionnaires forms" that were very similar to those used 2. They others provided with a set of instructions A total of They to fill out the form as close to the day and were told that their rating measure in confidentiality. in Study were also to us, and we paid spouses or significant and business reply envelopes for mailing measure. 26 observer reports were their forms directly back to the researchers. were instructed end of the as possible, to summarize the day to try and complete it as late in the to complete it accurately. It was stressed that for most in the early evening. The daily form took approxi- each evening. Participants were asked to once a week. Finally, they were told that should they forget ratings are meant as a whole. We encouraged them but before being too day as possible, sleepy of them, the optimal time will be Within scores on the three mately min to complete mail in adjectives (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) a form, that it is better to omit the form for that day rather than to to derive a of mean daily gratitude. These three were highly correlated, internal consistency adjectives with a mean filling it paid $20 they completed all out from memory. Participants were of the forms; $15 if they failed to complete all 21 forms. Virtually everyone reliability of a = .91. These daily mean gratitude ratings from to form a single composite across completed all 21 forms. were aggregated Other daily measures were aggregated into mean to Study 1, there were no differences in reported physical health complaints nor in time spent exercising, either me- vigorously or moderately, between the three groups. There were signifi- also no differences on the additional health behaviors that were and quality, aspirin, caffeine, alcohol < Note. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different, p < .05. * p < .05. itude than did the social comparison condition (M = 8.93, SD = 2.41), ps > .05. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were 0.88 for the on gratitude on positive affect In contrast that the standard mean difference between the gratitude and has- sles conditions was considerably larger in Study 2 (d = .88) than positive support There The gratitude condition appeared to increase positive affect during the 13-day period. People in the gratitude condition 0.24, SD = 0.75) reported significantly (p < .05) more 100% yields gratitude as a following p = .01. measured (sleep amount usage).³ Prosocial Behaviors on an important a sense community (Abresch et al., 1998). of integration Health behaviors. The daily form asked participants to record the Note. N 65. number of hours of sleep they received the night before, whether they had ***** *p<.05. Gratitude as a Mediator of the Interventions' Effects on Positive Affect Our theorizing has led us to suggest that gratitude, per se, may help to boost positive affect more generally, which is consistent with the facts that (a) the gratitude intervention elicited more and more positive affect than did the hassles condition, and positive affect were correlated, r(N=157) = .001. However, these bivariate associations do not shed was effects in the gratitude condition to problem, hassles condition. on whether Gratitude Positive Affect Mean daily gratitude was correlated p < .001, with mean affect, (N 65) 77, but not .43. Because, negative affect, r(N = 65) = .10, p = the gratitude intervention appeared to increase as mean mean tude as well daily positive measures themselves we examined affect, and because were significantly correlated, whether the effect of the gratitude intervention on daily positive of the gratitude intervention on the effect of the affect was mediated by the effect gratitude. that We also explored the possibility gratitude intervention on daily gratitude could be conceptualized as simply the by-product of Study 2, its on mean daily positive affect. As in we in the effects of these on gratitude and positive affect two interventions to correlation coefficients analysis. The correlation of to enhance the interpretability of our the intervention effect (i.e., gratitude = 65) = .37, p = .003, with the mean gratitude score pants in the control condition was lower than that for those in the the correlation the intervention Note. control) with gratitude was r(N negative sign indicating that for partici- gratitude condition. Similarly, of effect on positive affect was r(N = 65) = −.28, p = .026. When *p<.05. the on coefficient the gratitude induction. -.41) and the hypothesis that gratitude mediated of gratitude on on positive Unlike Study 1, however, the benefits did not physical symptomatology or suspect that this effect (ß = .85). extend to the somatic realm: No differences were observed in health behaviors. We (i.e., r = −.28) may have been due to the relatively short time frame of the study. habits in a 2-week period. of gratitude can People are unlikely to alter their exercise by the total of Study of the failure to replicate some the effects from we conducted a third study. Study 3 had the main purposes: (a) to extend the experimental 2, to 3 weeks to see if the benefits of a grateful over of time; (b) to a longer period base beyond healthy college students by with chronic disease; and (c) to examine benefits observed in Study 2 could be rep- licated in another daily study and, importantly, if these effects are observable within the context of the person's closest relationship. We thus expand our range of dependent variables to include spouse-rated affect and satisfaction with life. gratitude helped someone EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH quence of condition in frequency of helping others. Because Study 1 to Using a more intensive procedure this second study enabled also marginally more likely to have helped someone with a = .08, compared with people in the F(2, 154) = 1.72, p did not differ from the social comparison They three period from 2 weeks outlook broaden recruiting our participant an the affective could be observed life Condition any difficulties falling asleep they woke up sleep that extremely). rienced pain interfered each day affect. Days 1-21 the 21 of the gratitude condition experienced higher levels of positive affect during the 13-day period, and it appears plausible that this effect on positive affect generally was due to the intervention's effect on Grateful Hassles Events 5.05ª 4.67b 4.66b 5.48ª 5.11b 5.10b 3.03ª 3.75b 4.35a 3.74ª from Participants Data Reduction Effects of days. scores over the to of a to another, suggesting prosocial motivation as a conse- Data the (b) climbing overall reports variables, We conducted the gratitude rating as Manipulation GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING per se. They were also more likely to report having with personal problem or offered emotional adult sample each daily related to a Gratitude 9.78ª 0.24ª 0.00 Dependent Gratitude composite for the Positive affect factor into their Negative Table 4 Means, Standard 3 Descriptive statistics on these health variables are available from Robert A. Emmons. (gratitude, determine gratitude because EMMONS AND MCCULLOUGH focusing single measure off 1, we = major events better Study 3.545 3.01b == As can reported getting score affect factor score 10.87, SD on the intervention effect and grati- d = .78. unique association (B = .78, p < .001) = 2.47) than did the control condition (M = 8.91, positive affect was regressed tude simultaneously, gratitude had a significant with positive affect .92). Conversely, when the intervention effect and positive affect simultaneously, 21-day positive and affect had a unique association but the intervention did not gratitude was regressed on and Negative Affect (B = .01, p = Group Differences on Positive As in Studies 1 and we calculated 2, mean significant with gratitude negative affect scores 29 other but the intervention effect also had affect ratings on = 0). For by submitting 21-day discrete p < .001), to a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with ob- significant effect gratitude (3: = –.17, p limin rotation (A this factor analysis, to increase our The indirect (mediated) effect of the intervention ratio, also included data from 32 participants affect is equal to the product of the correlation coefficient indexing who completed an experimental condition the intervention-gratitude relationship (r = –. -.37) and the regres- and 2, we sion coefficient indexing the so-called effect on positive cases-to-variables we that was not included in the present study. As in Studies 1 only also specified that two factors accounted of gratitude on pos- two factors These for 66% of itive affect (3 = .78). The product of these two equals first factor, -.29. coefficients The proportion of the total intervention-positive affect as- that is accounted for by the mediating sociation (i.e., r = –.28) .80 for typical negative effects of gratitude can therefore the quotient of no loadings greater be computed as the total effect. Multiplying than the indirect effect to .40 with any of factor, which value exceeding accounted for 26% of (-.29/-.28) by 100% yields a a measure of basis of the available evidence, we can conceptualize a complete mediator of the intervention's effect on the intervention on excited, positive affect. positive affect, with typical positive affects such as happy, and inspired loading greater than 30 with than .80 on this factor and no loadings Conversely, if we assume that the effects of greater any of the negative affects. The positive we effect lated, r(N = 96) = −.18, p > .05. the total effect of As can be seen in Table 4, gratitude (r -.37) that can be attributed to the indirect effects of higher scores on the positive factor (M = 0.35, affect than did the control condition (M = -0.25, 56. Also, gratitude were mediated by positive affect, would calculate the affect and negative affect factor scores were only modestly corre- indirect of the intervention on gratitude as [(-.28)(.73)] -.20. The proportion of the intervention on the gratitude intervention produced SD = 1.13) the intervention on positive affect therefore is -.20/-.37 = 55%. 0.98), F(1, Thus, as we found in Study 2, it appears reasonable to conclude the gratitude condition that gratitude = -0.26, intervention positive affect, 1.23), effects of the gratitude intervention that the strictly the by-product of the intervention's SD = 63) = 5.18, p = .026, d completely mediates the effects of the gratitude produced lower scores factor (M on but it on the negative affect SD = 0.73) than did the control condition (M = 0.26, SD = F(1, 63) = 4.37, p d = -.51. Thus, it appeared gratitude condition only fostered daily positive affect, but also, positive affect. reduced daily negative affect, during the 21-day study period. N = 65. ***** - Check is vs. the Life as whole Upcoming week Connected with others Dependent variable the night before (yes/no), and how refreshed morning (ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = physical pain they expe- how much (ranging from 1 = none and 6 and how = very severe) with what they wanted to accomplish each day (ranging participants indicated whether 5 = extremely). Finally, that day We on sleep duration older populations *p < .01. specifically by-product tude serves as Teigen, 8.03b -0.26⁰ 0.00 also indicated 21-day period. more positive spent exercising, Study 2, higher levels blessings were with a personal suggesting induction. Discussion Condition Social Hassles comparison F(2, 157) us on 21-Day Mean Affects, variable found GRATITUDE AND WELL-BEING *p < .01. the of positive affect. sleep to a one-way the observe on what one (yes/no). gratitude across the 21-day follow-up period. for condition was F(1, 63) = 9.80, p < Table 4, the gratitude condition elicited positive daily more connected control condition (see Table in Study 2, daily grati- pation in the gratitude these two improvements in people's assessments a gratitude intervention that is consistent than comparison six activities survey, we aggregated gratitude Participants dependent control) whether and Results included predicts quality of Deviations, and Effects problem significant, with led ANOVA, variable on Health Measures be seen in Table 6, participants of sleep each more hours -0.06 in one's life, on ways with that a weekly for cultivating gratitude in number grateful Gratitude 10.87 0.35 -0.26 8.93 ab 0.00ab a is Effects on Subjective Well-Being Subjective appraisals. As in Study 1, participants itude condition reported considerably more satisfaction lives as whole, felt more about and felt optimism others factors, condition led to 5.54 5.70 5.77 Gratitude Study 3 the 21-day mean and two experimental as the two levels of the independent the conditions elicited differential were consistent with the effects the intervention and optimistic appraisals 379 on with 5). Therefore, F(2, 189) than In Study to reductions does 4.08* 2.81* 3.06* 3.76*** that items life in of these questionnaires to complete the were mailed directly back $10 for completing the obtained from each group. 381 the in to of Experimental Control Table 5 Comparisons of Groups by Measures of Subjective Well-Being, Study 3 in which others, or benefit listing 8.40* 3.28* NS a 8.91 -0.25 0.26 result of the think not grateful more general of beneficial for. People in other. motivator The daily manipulation powerful facilitating 4.80 5.20 5.07 Control 100%, were to We asked their spouse The main .01. As more gratitude 383 appear be expected we were the positive (3 = .73, small, statistically .044). one with a control self-guided daily gratitude exercises led focus also more likely to of positive affect. People report having helped someone offered emotional support motivation as a consequence of the gratitude This finding lends support to the hypothesis that grati- or to another, prosocial moral (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Em- mons, & Larson, 2001). were, on average, more in used in Study 1. Consequently, the attendant the weekly listing in contrast to Study 1, effect sizes for physical health symp- examined the effects the manipulation were larger in Study 2. Study 3 of the gratitude manipulation in a sample of with NMD. We found that random assignment to the grat- itude condition resulted in greater levels of positive affect, more adults sleep, better sleep quality, and greater optimism and a sense of connectedness to others. 3, we even found that the in negative affect, with correlational research affect (McCullough reporting less negative our mediational of Alternative Explanations effects substantial of the global well-being. upcoming participants is In with of one's life, more time fewer reported physical symptoms. In associated with on their Observer Reports of Well-Being 26 participants in the gratitude condition and in the condition, we computed the mean positive affect, negative the reports submitted by For the control affect, and life satisfaction on the basis of associated with al., their spouse or significant other. The participants in the gratitude 2002). Of most importance, analyses in Studies 2 the intervention on gratitude were condition were rated as higher in positive affect (3.68 vs. 3.31, p = and 3 revealed that the effects the gratitude induction and were not the more general effect of the intervention on .06) and life satisfaction (4.42 vs. 3.63, p < .02) than participants results of for negative the in the control condition; no difference was observed affect. These data indicate that the benefits of the gratitude listing, in comparison with a control group, transcend self-perceptions and are evident at least to significant others. or need did in the it appears that partici- and consistent of the Affect this quotient so, on the gratitude as emotion the gratitude condition night than did partici- were F(1, 63) 9.80****** 5.18* 4.37% in the that the were effects on Because of the dearth As in Study research reported in appraisals. As not previously demon- create increases easily imple- We do how long these effects last and whether they can be sustained over time. There does seem be evidence that some of Strengths and Limitations Discussion of experimental research on strategies for 1, the gratitude manipulation affected subjective life cultivating positive affect in daily life, the in Study 2, the gratitude manipulation appeared to these studies offer important contributions in positive affect, as well as reductions in negative strated. We believe that we have established a rather affect. Once again, mediational analyses showed that gratitude was mented strategy for improving one's level of well-being. uniquely responsible for the effect of the intervention on positive not know the gratitude intervention also appears to have improved people's amount of sleep and the quality of that sleep. the effects on well-being are apparent Furthermore, the effects on well-being (positive affect and life ratings in Study 3 indicate. Future studies the participants' spouse or signifi- to examine long-term consequences of counting blessings. cant other. However, similar to Study 2, there were no measurable One of the unique features of this research is that we randomly effects of the manipulation on other measures of physical health or assigned participants to conditions. The literature on personality health behaviors. and subjective well-being is almost entirely correlational in nature. the manipulation used in these three view, a rather minimal intervention. We to reflect, either once day for 2 affect. In addition, to others, as the observer will to be designed satisfaction) were apparent to It should be kept in mind that studies represents, in our asked participants a week once a they have to be grateful for and we expected happiness is that on well-being. Seen in that light, the contentment to were would seem that, on the basis of the results to General Discussion A prevailing sentiment in both classical and popular writings on to 3 weeks, on what an effective approach for maximizing one's this limited request to impact be consciously grateful for one's blessings. It results we obtained rather noteworthy. After all, there are a of these three exper- myriad of influences on well-being, from personality factors imental studies, there some truth to this wisdom. Our results genetic influences life events, and thus provide some important findings that have not been reported in the any one factor by empirical literature on happiness. do appear exist benefits potent. We to regularly focusing one's blessings. The advantages are most deep sense of gratefulness on hassles or complaints, instill the virtue of gratitude as with simply reflecting the Nevertheless, we believe that given is to chronic and temporary itself would not to be particularly There to are under no illusion able to inculcate a on as a fundamental life orientation or to pronounced when compared with a focus a brief manipulation. yet are still apparent in comparison grat- with their week, was associated contrasting conditions. believes 385 F(1, 63) 13.77** 5.38* 11.67*** one group. in Studies 2 and 3, gratitude than was ments and the empirical intentional grateful of of well-being. ing, 1997) is work concerning gratitude, that an for the self and to lead to negative focus is one form cognitive appraisal of & Van Yperen, 1990). The contribution one's life circumstances with the ability to impact long-term levels mental processes for eliciting In each study, inducing a of gratefulness gratitude exercises led to some emotional, interpersonal benefits. Unfortunately, not all findings replicated the failure to replicate state through the of further study. self-guided physical, or When considering the mean effect sizes, difference between the gratitude and hassles conditions became more pronounced in across the three studies. With respect to the Study 2, the first daily study. This indicates focus that, relative to a an effective strategy for producing reliably higher exercise finding, we suspect that too short a on complaints, period write, on a daily basis, alter such they are grateful. 2-3 weeks is simply to observe an effect. People are unlikely to levels of pleasant affect is for people to exercise patterns within a short period of time. about those aspects of their lives for which We are confident that this was a real effect Study 1, and did not Moreover, the participants in the gratitude condition were more simply reflect self-perceptions. Studies have found that self-reports likely to have offered others emotional support, suggesting that not of exercise correlate reliably with physical fitness and to all benefits were solely intrapsychic. rate (Brown, 1991). in levels physiological indices such as resting heart health complaints, reflecting as they do stable predis- (Wangby, 2000) would also be unlikely to shift signifi- within a short time Is it possible to simply attribute the of the intervention to be operating as the results were symptomatology in Study 2 (roughly half of mean the observed was far less span. Other methodological factors may well. Inspection of mean levels of symptom re- demand characteristics? If due to demand charac- porting in the first two studies revealed extremely low levels of teristics, then ratings on the outcome variables should have been the levels affected uniformly. However, of range could have attenu- Those in the gratitude condition ated the effects of the experimental manipulation in the daily advantages other conditions, did exhibit were rather selective. for example, people reported in Study 1). This restriction predictable. always show over the and they time frames (as There were clearly to the study. Aggregating symptoms reports over longer in Study 1) may reveal more reliable effects. effect. In Study 3, in the gratitude condition did not feel less pain or have fewer difficulties in activities of daily Sizes living. Attempts were also made by us to conceal We hypothesized on perceives would have not been privy to oneself conditions. They not informed that Relative Magnitude of the Effect the hypothesis in the studies. Participants were unaware that they were participating that reflecting ways in which one in a random design experiment, and as being better off than others would have less of a the various experimental beneficial effect on well-being than would consciously counting it was a research study on gratitude one's blessings. Somewhat contrary expectations, we did of the social comparison condition the demands not find that the downward social comparison group experienced appear similar yet the effect of the gratitude manipulation even stronger, and well-being. The addition to our in Study 2, where was statistically significantly lower levels of com- also argues against a simple pared with demand alternative. It might be also wondered whether the same pattern would have been on the positives parison reported only marginally lower levels experiential state that overlaps yet is thinking." We did not that the positive affect as group. Similarly, the social com- of grateful observed if we had simply asked people to dwell emotions (grateful, thankful, and appreciative) than did partici- in their lives or had them otherwise engage in happy thinking. pants in the gratitude condition. However, all of the mean differ- Research literature and conceptual analyses of gratitude suggest ences were in the predicted direction, with the downward social that gratitude is an comparison condition falling between the gratitude and hassles distinct from simply "positive all of the positive moods rated. Studies have grateful group felt less angry, depressed, that downward social comparison is an effective states as a global positivity hypothesis coping strategy (Stanton, Danoff-Burg, in the sense that gratitude is a moral affect motivates prosocial been suggested as a possible route to gratitude, which behavior, one would anticipate different consequences or action might increase tendencies for gratitude as opposed to happiness. Indeed, we did their levels of thankfulness (Miller, 1995). Reflecting on the pos- find in Study 2 that people in the gratitude condition were signif- downward icantly more likely to have helped another conditions on almost sad, or other unpleasant documented might suggest. Furthermore, & Cameron, 1999) and it that has even under certain circumstances and for certain people, itive aspects of one's life, a process common to both the with a personal problem social those in the comparison and gratitude conditions, has benefits when compared with compared with a focus on hassles and complaints. Given that Gratitude and Well-Being: An Upward Spiral? gratitude is a positive affective state that covaries with other et manipulation Insofar that it is not possible to terms positive emotions (Mayer al., 1991), it would be surprising if a that elevated positive affect would leave grateful emotions untouched. Yet, gratitude appears to be the more potent affect. Because of its of methodological account for our results in what mechanisms, psychological or why participants in the gratitude condi- of well-being than those in elicitor of pleasant potential for eliciting otherwise, might explain 2000), generally evidenced higher levels pride and/or envy (Smith, we cannot social comparison as a general strategy for inducing feelings direct routes are available. of that Fredrickson's (1998, recommend downward tion the comparison conditions? We believe social 2000) broaden and build model of positive emotions have also been shown to have negative implications especially helpful here. She has argued gratitude when more Downward may be comparisons that positive emotions find this the previous theoretical argu- a finding that trait pattern did not what advantages limits with affect (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, of comparison-based judg- gratitude (e.g., counterfactual think- an intriguing research question that is in need et 387

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

It appears that you are referencing specific studies but you havent provided the details or names of these studies In order to provide accurate and re... View the full answer