Grant Gino JPSP 2010

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 98, No. 6, 946 –955 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017935

A Little Thanks Goes a Long Way:


Explaining Why Gratitude Expressions Motivate Prosocial Behavior

Adam M. Grant Francesca Gino


University of Pennsylvania University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Although research has established that receiving expressions of gratitude increases prosocial behavior,
little is known about the psychological mechanisms that mediate this effect. We propose that gratitude
expressions can enhance prosocial behavior through both agentic and communal mechanisms, such that
when helpers are thanked for their efforts, they experience stronger feelings of self-efficacy and social
worth, which motivate them to engage in prosocial behavior. In Experiments 1 and 2, receiving a brief
written expression of gratitude motivated helpers to assist both the beneficiary who expressed gratitude
and a different beneficiary. These effects of gratitude expressions were mediated by perceptions of social
worth and not by self-efficacy or affect. In Experiment 3, we constructively replicated these effects in a
field experiment: A manager’s gratitude expression increased the number of calls made by university
fundraisers, which was mediated by social worth but not self-efficacy. In Experiment 4, a different
measure of social worth mediated the effects of an interpersonal gratitude expression. Our results support
the communal perspective rather than the agentic perspective: Gratitude expressions increase prosocial
behavior by enabling individuals to feel socially valued.

Keywords: gratitude, prosocial behavior, helping, agency and communion, social worth

We are better pleased to see those on whom we confer benefits than beneficiaries’ expressions of gratitude affect helpers. Because grat-
those from whom we receive them. itude is, by definition, a social emotion produced in social ex-
—La Rochefoucauld, Maxims changes (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001), it is
critical to examine how gratitude affects both partners in social
Gratitude is omnipresent in social life. People feel grateful when
exchanges. Toward this end, a number of studies have provided
they benefit from gifts, assistance, kindness, help, favors, and support
initial evidence that gratitude expressions motivate prosocial be-
from others (Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968). Grateful feelings
havior (for a review, see McCullough et al., 2001). However, little
have several beneficial effects: They enable individuals to savor
research has been done to examine why gratitude expressions
positive experiences, cope with stressful circumstances, and
motivate prosocial behavior. Through what psychological pro-
strengthen social relationships (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade,
cesses does being thanked lead to higher levels of helping?
2005). Psychological research highlights the benefits of gratitude
We address this question by drawing on the classic distinction
as a trait, demonstrating that dispositional gratitude is associated
between agency and communion. Psychologists have long argued
with higher levels of subjective well-being (McCullough, Tsang,
that individuals have basic motives to feel both agentic, or per-
& Emmons, 2004), and as a state, demonstrating that the act of
sonally competent and capable, and communal, or connected to
counting one’s blessings can increase positive emotions, subjective
and valued by others (Bakan, 1966; McAdams & de St. Aubin,
well-being, and health (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Seligman,
1992; Wiggins, 1979). We compare the agentic and communal
Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Behaviorally, gratitude is a proso-
mechanisms that may mediate the effects of gratitude expressions
cial trait and state: It motivates individuals to engage in prosocial
on prosocial behavior. From an agentic perspective, expressions of
behaviors to reciprocate the assistance they receive from others
gratitude may enhance helpers’ feelings of self-efficacy, which
(Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Tsang, 2006).
will motivate them to engage in prosocial behavior by reducing
Although research provides valuable insights into beneficiaries’
their feelings of uncertainty about whether they can help effec-
experiences of gratitude, it offers less information about how
tively. From a communal perspective, expressions of gratitude
may enhance helpers’ feelings of social worth, which will motivate
them to engage in prosocial behavior by reducing their feelings of
Adam M. Grant, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; uncertainty about whether their help will be valued by beneficia-
Francesca Gino, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North ries. Across four experiments, we compare these agentic and
Carolina at Chapel Hill. communal mechanisms to explain why gratitude expressions in-
For assistance with data collection and entry, we thank Rebecca Bram- crease prosocial behavior.
lett, Beth Braxton, Stan Campbell, Jenny Deveau, Howard Heevner, Yuxi
Liu, and Aaron Maas.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adam M. Gratitude Expressions and Prosocial Behavior
Grant, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Locust
Walk, Suite 2000 SH/DH, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370. E-mail: Gratitude is a feeling of thankfulness directed toward others that
grantad@wharton.upenn.edu emerges through social exchanges between helpers and beneficia-

946
GRATITUDE EXPRESSIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 947

ries (Blau, 1964). Beneficiaries experience gratitude when they willing to provide help because they feel that their efforts will
attribute their favorable circumstances to the efforts of a helper increase their odds of genuinely helping others (Bandura, 1977).
(Weiner, 1985). Beneficiaries often express gratitude by thanking Thus, we propose that when beneficiaries express gratitude, help-
helpers for their contributions. Indeed, psychologists have manip- ers will feel greater self-efficacy, which will motivate them to
ulated gratitude through “gratitude visits” in which beneficiaries engage in prosocial behavior.
express thanks to helpers (Seligman et al., 2005).
Research has shown that these gratitude visits positively affect Communal Mechanism: Social Worth
not only the beneficiaries but also the helpers themselves. Grati-
tude expressions appear to serve as moral reinforcers in enhancing From a communal perspective, gratitude expressions may also
helpers’ prosocial behavior (McCullough et al., 2001). A number increase prosocial behavior by enabling helpers to feel valued.
of experiments have shown that when helpers are thanked by the Psychologists have argued that the pursuit of social worth—a
beneficiaries of their help, helpers are more willing to help these sense of being valued by others—is a fundamental human moti-
beneficiaries again (Carey, Clicque, Leighton, & Milton, 1976; vation (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
H. B. Clark, Northrop, & Barkshire, 1988; McGovern, Ditzian, & When individuals experience social worth, they feel that their
Taylor, 1975; Rind & Bordia, 1995) and to help others (R. D. actions matter in other people’s lives (Elliott, Colangelo, & Gelles,
Clark, 1975; Goldman, Seever, & Seever, 1982; Moss & Page, 2005; Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981), which confers a sense of
1972). However, we know little about the mediating psychological belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Keyes, 1998). Social
processes underlying these effects: Why do beneficiaries’ gratitude worth fulfills the “desire to be needed by others . . . one expression
expressions motivate helpers’ prosocial behavior? of communion” (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992, p. 1005). When
Because gratitude expressions are delivered by beneficiaries to individuals experience social worth, they feel needed, cared about,
helpers as part of a social exchange process, gratitude expressions and valued by others, which signifies an interpersonal bond or
are likely to influence how helpers view themselves in the social positive relationship (Bakan, 1966; Kaplan & Kaplan, 2003; Wr-
world. A rich history of theory and research in psychology sug- zesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003).
gests that individuals’ self-views in the social world vary along Individuals often withhold help because they are uncertain about
two dimensions: agency and communion (Bakan, 1966; Fiske, whether beneficiaries will value their help. Because giving help
Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Wiggins, 1979). Agency refers to feelings can lead beneficiaries to feel incompetent, helpless, and powerless,
of personal competence or self-efficacy, and communion refers to beneficiaries often reject the offers of helpers (Fisher, Nadler, &
feelings of interpersonal warmth or connectedness to others (for a Whitcher-Alagna, 1982), leaving helpers feeling spurned, angry,
review, see Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005). and reticent to offer help again (Rosen et al., 1987). An expression
We propose that gratitude expressions can increase helpers’ proso- of gratitude can reduce the helper’s experience of uncertainty
cial behaviors by increasing their agentic feelings of self-efficacy about whether the help will be appreciated. Expressions of grati-
and their communal feelings of social worth. tude signify that a beneficiary values, needs, appreciates, and
accepts one’s assistance rather than rejecting or devaluing it.
Agentic Mechanism: Self-Efficacy Gratitude expressions provide concrete evidence that helpers’ ac-
tions matter in the lives of beneficiaries, thus satisfying helpers’
From an agentic perspective, gratitude expressions may increase basic motives to feel valued (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Elliott et
prosocial behavior by enabling helpers to experience greater self- al., 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When helpers feel valued, they
efficacy. Self-efficacy is the feeling of being capable and compe- become more motivated to help because they feel their actions will
tent to act effectively to orchestrate an outcome (Bandura, 1977). improve the well-being of beneficiaries (Batson, 1998). Feeling
Psychologists agree that this desire to feel capable and competent valued encourages prosocial behavior by reducing the helper’s
is a basic human motivation (White, 1959; Ryan & Deci, 2000). uncertainty about whether beneficiaries will welcome assistance.
Extensive research has shown that when individuals feel effica- Thus, we propose that when beneficiaries express gratitude, help-
cious in an activity, they are more willing to invest time and energy ers will feel more socially valued, which will motivate helpers to
in it because they believe that their efforts can lead to success engage in prosocial behavior.
(Bandura, 1977; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Individuals often withhold help because they are uncertain about Overview of the Present Research
whether they will be able to help competently and effectively
(Rosen, Mickler, & Collins, 1987). Because helping at the wrong We compare these agentic and communal mechanisms as me-
time or in the wrong way can harm or embarrass beneficiaries, diators of the effects of gratitude expressions on helpers’ prosocial
helpers may be reluctant to give assistance. An expression of behaviors across four experiments. In Experiment 1, we examine
gratitude from a beneficiary can reduce the helper’s experience of whether self-efficacy and social worth mediate the effects of
uncertainty about being capable of helping effectively. Gratitude receiving a brief expression of gratitude on the prosocial behavior
signifies that a beneficiary is confident in a helper’s ability to offer of voluntarily helping a student improve a job application cover
assistance successfully (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, letter. In Experiment 2, we investigate self-efficacy and social
2005). Gratitude provides positive feedback to helpers that they worth as mediators of a spillover effect of gratitude expressions
have succeeded—and can succeed—in benefiting recipients, from one beneficiary on prosocial behavior toward a different
thereby satisfying helpers’ basic motives to feel capable and ef- beneficiary. In Experiment 3, we assess the external validity of the
fective (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000; mediating mechanisms in a field experiment with university fund-
White, 1959). When helpers feel efficacious, they become more raisers. In Experiment 4, we constructively replicate our effects
948 GRANT AND GINO

with new measures of the proposed mediators and a new manip- wondering if you could help with a second cover letter I prepared
ulation of gratitude expressions. and give me feedback on it. The cover letter is attached. Can you
send me some comments in the next 3 days?”
Experiment 1 Thus, the two messages were identical except for the addition of
a gratitude expression in the latter. The initial instructions asked
We examined the effects of gratitude expressions on the proso- participants to e-mail the experimenter after sending their feedback
cial behavior of helping a student improve his or her job applica- to Eric Sorenson. After receiving this e-mail and sending partici-
tion cover letters (Grant et al., 2007). Participants edited a stu- pants one of the two messages from Eric with our gratitude
dent’s cover letter and then received either a neutral or grateful manipulation, the experimenter sent participants a link to an online
message from the student, who subsequently asked for help on questionnaire that contained our measures of self-efficacy, social
another cover letter. We tracked the effect of the gratitude expres- worth, positive and negative affect, and a manipulation check.
sion on whether participants engaged in prosocial behavior by After participants completed the final questionnaire, the experi-
helping with the second letter and assessed whether this effect was menter sent instructions for obtaining the $10 that participants had
mediated by perceptions of self-efficacy and social worth. We also earned. We measured objective prosocial behavior by tracking
measured affect as an alternative explanation. It may be the case whether participants provided help on the second cover letter in the
that by communicating the benefits of helping, gratitude expres- following 3 days.
sions increase helpers’ feelings of positive affect or reduce their Measures. Unless otherwise indicated, all items had a 7-point
feelings of negative affect. In turn, these changes in helpers’ own Likert-type response scale anchored at 1 ⫽ disagree strongly and
feelings may enhance their prosocial behavior by leading helpers 7 ⫽ agree strongly.
to perceive beneficiaries in a more favorable light and encouraging Prosocial behavior. We assessed prosocial behavior with a
helpers to maintain their positive moods (e.g., Carlson, Charlin, & dichotomous measure of whether participants voluntarily provided
Miller, 1988; Fredrickson, 2001). help on the second cover letter.
Self-efficacy. We assessed self-efficacy with a three-item
scale adapted from Bandura (1990), which asked participants to
Method
indicate the extent to which they felt capable, competent, and able
Participants, design, and procedures. Sixty-nine undergrad- to help in this specific task (␣ ⫽ .93).
uate and graduate students (25 male, 44 female, Mage ⫽ 21.79 Social worth. We assessed the extent to which participants felt
years, SD ⫽ 3.55) at a university in the Southeast United States valued with a three-item scale adapted from measures by Keyes
participated in this study. Their majors were predominantly social (1998) and Grant (2008), which asked participants to indicate the
science (67.8%), natural science (27.5%), humanities (11.6%), and extent to which they felt valued as a person by the student, felt
mathematics (2.9%). We recruited the participants through an appreciated as an individual by the student, and felt that they had
advertisement on a university-wide website that offered $10 in made a positive difference in the student’s life (␣ ⫽ .84).
exchange for participation in an online study about writing skills Positive and negative affect. Participants completed the 20-
and feedback. When they signed up, participants received an item state version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
electronic message from the experimenter explaining that they (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), which has 10 items each for
would be providing feedback on a student’s job application cover positive affect (e.g., enthusiastic, inspired; ␣ ⫽ .95) and negative
letter as part of a study run by the university’s career center. affect (e.g., upset, distressed; ␣ ⫽ .96).
Participants received a cover letter from the experimenter and were Manipulation check. To ensure that our gratitude manipula-
asked to send their comments by e-mail directly to the student, Eric tion was effective, we asked participants to indicate the extent to
Sorenson (ericsor2006@gmail.com), within 24 hr. The experi- which the student’s e-mail message expressed gratitude and thanks
menter also asked participants to send her an e-mail once they had (␣ ⫽ .95). From both conceptual and empirical perspectives, it is
sent their feedback directly to Eric, just to let the experimenter know important to address how this manipulation check is distinct from
they had completed the task. When they sent their feedback, on the social worth. Conceptually, the gratitude manipulation check as-
next day, the experimenter sent them a reply from the student’s e-mail sesses the helper’s perception that the beneficiary’s specific com-
account, which contained our manipulation. We randomly divided munication expressed thanks. The measure of social worth, on the
participants between two conditions: gratitude (n ⫽ 35) and con- other hand, assesses the helper’s more general feeling of being
trol (n ⫽ 34). In both conditions, the message from Eric Sorenson valued as a person by the beneficiary. Empirically, the two vari-
asked for help with a second cover letter; the message varied only ables shared only 15.8% of their variance (r ⫽ .40, p ⬍ .01). We
in the amount of gratitude expressed for the help that participants conducted both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to
had provided on the first cover letter. assess whether they loaded on distinct factors. For the exploratory
In the control condition, participants received the following factor analysis, we used principal axis factoring and maximum
message from Eric Sorenson’s e-mail account: “Dear [name], I just likelihood estimation procedures with oblique rotation. The anal-
wanted to let you know that I received your feedback on my cover ysis returned the expected two-factor solution (eigenvalues ⫽ 2.95
letter. I was wondering if you could help with a second cover letter and 1.28): The three social worth items loaded strongly on the first
I prepared and give me feedback on it. The cover letter is attached. factor (.90, .89, .58), with very low cross-loadings on the second
Can you send me some comments in the next 3 days?” factor (.06, .10, ⫺.07), and the two manipulation check items
In the gratitude condition, the message read: “Dear [name], I loaded strongly on the second factor (.91, .99), with very low
just wanted to let you know that I received your feedback on my cross-loadings on the first factor (.01, ⫺.02). In the confirmatory
cover letter. Thank you so much! I am really grateful. I was factor analysis, we used EQS software Version 6.1 with maximum
GRATITUDE EXPRESSIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 949

likelihood estimation procedures (e.g., Bentler & Dudgeon, 1996; behavior (␤ ⫽ ⫺.01), t(65) ⫽ ⫺0.04, p ⫽ .97. Thus, self-efficacy
Kline, 1998). The two-factor model displayed excellent fit accord- did not mediate the effect of gratitude on prosocial behavior.
ing to Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria, ␹2(5, N ⫽ 69) ⫽ 8.85, To complete the test of mediation for social worth, the fourth
comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ .98, standardized root-mean-square criterion holds that the effect of the independent variable on the
residual (SRMR) ⫽ .045, whereas the one-factor model displayed dependent variable should decrease after controlling for the medi-
very poor fit, ␹2(5, N ⫽ 69) ⫽ 106.43, CFI ⫽ .58, SRMR ⫽ .180. ators. After controlling for social worth, the effect of the gratitude
Taken together, these results suggest that the gratitude manipula- manipulation on prosocial behavior decreased from ␤ ⫽ .33,
tion check was indeed conceptually and empirically distinct from t(67) ⫽ 2.90, p ⬍ .01 to ␤ ⫽ .22, t(65) ⫽ 1.85, p ⫽ .07. To test
the social worth measure. whether the size of the indirect effect of the gratitude manipulation
on prosocial behavior through social worth differed significantly
from zero, we used a bootstrap procedure to construct bias-
Results and Discussion corrected confidence intervals based on 1,000 random samples
with replacement from the full sample, as recommended by meth-
Means and standard deviations by condition appear in Table 1. odologists and statisticians (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007;
In support of the validity of our manipulation, an independent- Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The size of the indirect effect from the
samples t test showed that participants in the gratitude condition full sample was .12, and the 95% confidence interval excluded
perceived Eric’s e-mail message as expressing more gratitude zero, 95% CI [0.04, 0.26]. Thus, social worth mediated the effect
(M ⫽ 6.27, SD ⫽ 0.66) than did participants in the control of gratitude on prosocial behavior.1
condition (M ⫽ 4.18, SD ⫽ 1.68), t(67) ⫽ 6.85, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ These results provide evidence that gratitude expressions in-
1.67. In support of our hypothesis that gratitude expressions would crease prosocial behavior through the communal mechanism of
increase prosocial behavior, the percentage of participants volun- enabling helpers to feel more socially valued, rather than through
tarily providing help by editing the second letter was larger in the the agentic mechanism of enabling helpers to feel more efficacious
gratitude condition (23/35, 66%) than in the neutral condition or through positive or negative affect. However, in this study, we
(11/34, 32%), ␹2(1, N ⫽ 69) ⫽ 7.68, p ⬍ .01. Independent- focused on prosocial behavior directed toward the same benefi-
samples t tests showed that participants in the gratitude condition ciary who expressed gratitude. A more stringent test of our hy-
felt significantly greater self-efficacy (M ⫽ 6.03, SD ⫽ 0.51) than pothesis requires examining whether self-efficacy and social worth
did participants in the control condition (M ⫽ 5.65, SD ⫽ 1.00), mediate the effect of gratitude expressions on prosocial behavior
t(67) ⫽ 2.01, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.49. In addition, participants in the directed toward a third party. Does an expression of gratitude from
gratitude condition felt significantly more socially valued (M ⫽ one beneficiary cause helpers to feel more efficacious or socially
6.05, SD ⫽ 0.55) than did participants in the control condition valued and thus motivate them to provide additional help beyond
(M ⫽ 5.44, SD ⫽ 0.99), t(67) ⫽ 3.15, p ⬍ .01, d ⫽ 0.77. However, this dyadic relationship to a different beneficiary?
the gratitude manipulation did not influence positive or negative
affect. Participants in the gratitude condition did not differ signif-
Experiment 2
icantly in positive affect (M ⫽ 4.06, SD ⫽ 1.34) from those in the
control condition (M ⫽ 3.59, SD ⫽ 1.15), t(67) ⫽ 1.58, ns. In our second study, we examine whether social worth mediates
Participants in the gratitude condition also did not differ signifi- the spillover effects of one beneficiary’s gratitude expression on
cantly in negative affect (M ⫽ 1.45, SD ⫽ 0.80) from those in the helpers’ prosocial behavior toward another beneficiary. To
control condition (M ⫽ 1.55, SD ⫽ 0.76), t(67) ⫽ 0.58, ns. strengthen causal inferences about the primacy of self-efficacy
To examine whether self-efficacy or social worth mediated the and/or social worth driving prosocial behavior, we measure self-
effect of gratitude on prosocial behavior, we followed the steps efficacy and social worth before providing participants with the
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). The first and second opportunity to engage in prosocial behavior. We also measured
criteria specify that the independent variable should significantly feelings of positive and negative affect. Furthermore, to capture a
affect the dependent variable and the mediators. The prior analyses more specific affective state, we also explored the possibility that
showed that these two criteria were met, as the gratitude manipu- gratitude expressions increase prosocial behavior by enhancing
lation had a significant effect on the dependent variable of proso- helpers’ feelings of empathy toward beneficiaries (Batson, 1998).
cial behavior and the mediators of self-efficacy and social worth.
To assess the third and fourth criteria, we conducted a hierarchical Method
ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression analysis predicting proso-
cial behavior from the independent variable of gratitude condition Participants, design, and procedures. Fifty-seven under-
(Step 1) and the mediators of self-efficacy and social worth (Step graduate and graduate students (28 male, 29 female, Mage ⫽ 23.21,
2). The third criterion specifies that the mediator should signifi- SD ⫽ 3.47) at local universities in the Northeast United States
cantly predict the dependent variable while controlling for the participated in this study. Their majors were predominantly in
independent variable. The results met this criterion for social mathematics, engineering, information, and computer science
(43.9%); social science (31.6%), natural science (14%); and the
worth: With the gratitude manipulation controlled for, social worth
significantly predicted higher prosocial behavior (␤ ⫽ .32),
t(65) ⫽ 2.01, p ⬍ .05. Including social worth increased variance 1
In Experiments 1 and 2, because our dependent variable was binary, we
explained significantly by 9% from r2 ⫽ .11 to r2 ⫽ .20, F(1, reran the mediation analyses with MacKinnon and Dwyer’s (1993) logistic
66) ⫽ 7.23, p ⬍ .01. However, the results did not meet this regression method and found the same pattern of results. We report the
criterion for self-efficacy, which did not predict higher prosocial more traditional approach in the interest of parsimony.
950 GRANT AND GINO

Table 1
Experiment 1 Means by Condition

Manipulation
Prosocial Self-efficacy Social worth Positive affect Negative affect check
behavior
Condition % M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Gratitude 66 6.03 0.51 6.05 0.55 4.06 1.34 1.45 0.80 6.27 0.66
Control 32 5.65 1.00 5.44 0.99 3.59 1.15 1.55 0.76 4.18 1.68

Note. Gratitude n ⫽ 35; control n ⫽ 34.

humanities (8.8%). We used the same recruiting method as in the Prosocial behavior. We assessed prosocial behavior with a
previous study, advertising the experiment as an online study of binary measure, coding whether participants voluntarily provided
writing and feedback that would pay $10. Upon signing up, par- help to Steven Rogoff on his cover letter.
ticipants received an electronic message from the experimenter Mediating mechanisms: Self-efficacy and social worth. We
asking them to read a student’s job application cover letter and measured self-efficacy with the six-item scale from Ryan, Koest-
send the comments by e-mail directly to the student, Eric Soren- ner, and Deci (1991), which includes items such as, “I think I was
son, within 24 hr. When participants submitted their feedback, we pretty good at this task” and “I was pretty skilled at this task” (␣ ⫽
sent them a reply from the student’s e-mail account containing our .89). We measured social worth with the same scale as in the
manipulation. As in the previous experiment, we randomly divided previous experiment (␣ ⫽ .70).
participants between two conditions: gratitude (n ⫽ 29) and con- Alternative explanations: Affective states. As alternative ex-
trol (n ⫽ 28). planations, we measured affect at the same time as the self-efficacy
In the control condition, participants received the following and social worth scales. We measured positive and negative affect
message from Eric Sorenson’s e-mail account: “Dear [name], I just using the PANAS (Watson et al. 1988), and both the positive affect
wanted to let you know that I received your feedback on my cover (␣ ⫽ .96) and negative affect (␣ ⫽ .93) scales showed high internal
letter.” In the gratitude condition, the message read: “Dear [name], consistency. We measured participants’ feelings of empathy toward
I just wanted to let you know that I received your feedback on my the student with Batson’s (1987) six-item adjective scale (␣ ⫽ .89).
cover letter. Thank you so much! I am really grateful.” The next Manipulation check. Participants rated the degree to which Eric
day, the experimenter sent all participants a link to an online Sorenson’s message expressed gratitude and thanks (␣ ⫽ .96). The
questionnaire, which included a measure of self-efficacy, social manipulation check and the social worth measure shared 36.6% of
worth, and a manipulation check. After participants completed the their variance (r ⫽ .61, p ⬍ .001). In a confirmatory factor analysis,
final questionnaire, the experimenter sent participants instructions the two-factor model achieved good fit, ␹2(5, N ⫽ 57) ⫽ 10.19,
for obtaining the $10 they had earned. CFI ⫽ .98, SRMR ⫽ .086, whereas the one-factor model did not,
One day later, the experimenter sent all participants an e-mail ␹2(5, N ⫽ 57) ⫽ 101.20, CFI ⫽ .56, SRMR ⫽ .160.
message from the account of a different student, Steven Rogoff.
The message read: “Hi [name], I understand that you participated Results and Discussion
in a Career Center study to help students improve their job appli-
cation cover letters. I was wondering if you could give me feed- Means and standard deviations by condition are displayed in Table
back on a cover letter I prepared. The cover letter is attached. 2. Our gratitude manipulation was effective: Participants in the grat-
Would you be willing to help me by sending me some comments itude condition rated Eric’s message as expressing more gratitude
in the next two days?” We tracked participants’ objective levels of (M ⫽ 6.22, SD ⫽ 1.06) than did participants in the control condition
prosocial behavior by assessing whether they helped Steven Ro- (M ⫽ 3.02, SD ⫽ 1.22), t(55) ⫽ 10.61, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 2.86. Consistent
goff by sending him feedback. with our prediction that gratitude expressions would increase proso-
Measures. Unless otherwise indicated, all items had a 7-point cial behavior toward a third party, the percentage of participants who
scale anchored at 1 ⫽ disagree strongly and 7 ⫽ agree strongly. voluntarily provided help to the new student, Steven, was significantly

Table 2
Experiment 2 Means by Condition

Negative Manipulation
Prosocial Self- efficacy Social worth Positive affect affect Empathy check
behavior
Condition % M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Gratitude 55 5.65 0.76 5.74 0.47 3.40 1.42 1.22 0.48 3.52 1.40 6.22 1.06
Control 25 5.05 0.83 4.63 0.60 3.57 1.40 1.39 0.34 3.55 1.21 3.02 1.22

Note. Gratitude n ⫽ 29; control n ⫽ 28.


GRATITUDE EXPRESSIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 951

higher in the gratitude condition (16/29, 55%) than in the neutral thankless job that triggers rude feedback and regular rejections
condition (7/28, 25%), ␹2(1, N ⫽ 57) ⫽ 5.39, p ⬍ .05. Participants in (Seligman & Schulman, 1986), gratitude expressions in this realm
the gratitude condition felt significantly more efficacious (M ⫽ 5.65, are likely to be memorable and salient. We examine the effects of
SD ⫽ 0.76) than did participants in the control condition (M ⫽ 5.05, a gratitude expression from an annual giving director on fundrais-
SD ⫽ 0.83), t(55) ⫽ 2.84, p ⬍ .01, d ⫽ 0.77. Participants in the ers’ prosocial behaviors in raising money to benefit the university,
gratitude condition also felt significantly more socially valued (M ⫽ as mediated by their perceptions of self-efficacy and social worth.
5.74, SD ⫽ 0.47) than did participants in the control condition (M ⫽
4.63, SD ⫽ 0.60), t(55) ⫽ 7.69, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 2.07. Once again, the Method
gratitude manipulation did not influence positive or negative affect.
Participants in the gratitude condition did not differ significantly in Participants, design, and procedures. Forty-one fundraisers
positive affect (M ⫽ 3.40, SD ⫽ 1.42) from participants in the control (10 male, 31 female, Mtenure ⫽ 4.5 months, SD ⫽ 5.17) at a public
condition (M ⫽ 3.57, SD ⫽ 1.40), t(55) ⫽ ⫺0.47, ns. Participants in U.S. university participated in this study. We randomly divided
the gratitude condition also did not differ significantly in negative fundraisers between two conditions in different shifts to prevent
affect (M ⫽ 1.22, SD ⫽ 0.48) from participants in the control treatment diffusion or discussions about the intervention. In the
condition (M ⫽ 1.39, SD ⫽ 0.34), t(55) ⫽ 1.51, ns. Finally, the control condition (n ⫽ 21), fundraisers received no treatment. In
gratitude manipulation also did not influence feelings of empathy; the gratitude condition (n ⫽ 20), a director of annual giving visited
participants in the gratitude condition (M ⫽ 3.52, SD ⫽ 1.40) and the organization to thank the fundraisers for their work. She
participants in the control condition (M ⫽ 3.55, SD ⫽ 1.21) reported explained to the fundraisers, “I am very grateful for your hard
nearly identical levels of empathy, t(55) ⫽ ⫺.11, ns. work. We sincerely appreciate your contributions to the univer-
To test whether self-efficacy and social worth mediated the sity.” Both groups of fundraisers received daily feedback on their
effect of gratitude on prosocial behavior, we used the same pro- effectiveness; the only difference between the two groups was
cedures as in the previous experiment. A hierarchical OLS regres- whether they received an expression of gratitude from the director.
sion analysis showed that while controlling for the gratitude ma- Measures.
nipulation, self-efficacy did not predict higher prosocial behavior Prosocial behavior. We assessed prosocial behavior with an
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.14), t(55) ⫽ ⫺0.91, p ⫽ .37, but social worth did (␤ ⫽ objective, automatically recorded measure of the number of vol-
.34), t(55) ⫽ 3.48, p ⬍ .01. Including social worth increased untary calls that each fundraiser made during the week before and
variance explained significantly by 10% from r2 ⫽ .10 to r2 ⫽ .20, the week after the intervention. This is an appropriate indicator of
F(1, 54) ⫽ 7.05, p ⫽ .01. After controlling for social worth, the prosocial behavior because the fundraisers received a fixed salary
effect of the gratitude manipulation on prosocial behavior de- and were not rewarded for effort; any voluntary calls that fund-
creased from ␤ ⫽ .31, t(57) ⫽ 2.40, p ⬍ .05 to ␤ ⫽ ⫺.05, t(55) ⫽ raisers made were purely to help the university.
⫺0.25, p ⫽ .80. A bootstrap analysis showed that the 95% bias- Mediating mechanisms: Self-efficacy and social worth. Dur-
corrected confidence intervals for the size of the indirect effect ing the week after the intervention, we measured fundraisers’
(.33) excluded zero, 95% CI [0.08, 0.58]. perceptions of self-efficacy and social worth. We measured self-
Thus, social worth— but not self-efficacy, positive affect, neg- efficacy with Spreitzer’s (1995) scale, asking the fundraisers to
ative affect, or empathy—mediated the effect of an expression of report the extent to which they felt capable, confident, and able to
gratitude from one beneficiary on prosocial behavior directed succeed in the task of raising money (␣ ⫽ .83). We measured
toward a different beneficiary. The fact that the opportunity for social worth with the same scale as in the previous two studies,
prosocial behavior occurred 24 hr after the measure of social worth asking the fundraisers to report the extent to which they felt, as
strengthens causal inferences about the role of social worth in employees, valued and appreciated by managers (␣ ⫽ .73).
driving prosocial behavior. Having established the internal validity
of our results, following the guidelines of full-cycle psychological Results and Discussion
research (Cialdini, 1980), we conducted a third experiment in the
field to examine the external validity of our findings. Means and standard deviations by condition appear in Table 3.
A repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated a significant
time– condition interaction on prosocial behavior, F(1, 39) ⫽ 4.97,
Experiment 3
p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .10. Paired-samples t tests within each condition
This study focuses on fundraisers responsible for soliciting over time indicated that the gratitude condition increased in proso-
alumni donations to a university. Because fundraising is often a cial behavior, t(19) ⫽ 2.60, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.75, whereas the control

Table 3
Experiment 3 Means by Condition

Pretest prosocial behavior Posttest prosocial behavior Posttest self-efficacy Posttest social worth

Condition M SD M SD M SD M SD

Gratitude 41.40 23.27 62.60 32.45 6.18 0.52 5.68 0.83


Control 39.76 25.21 41.38 22.05 5.80 0.63 5.04 1.02

Note. Gratitude n ⫽ 20; control n ⫽ 21.


952 GRANT AND GINO

condition did not, t(20) ⫽ 0.44. In addition, compared with fund- them to help a student, Eric Sorenson, by editing his job applica-
raisers in the control condition, fundraisers in the gratitude condi- tion cover letters. They edited an initial cover letter for Eric, and
tion reported stronger perceptions of self-efficacy, t(39) ⫽ 2.06, then a confederate acting as Eric arrived, purportedly to deliver
p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.66, and social worth, t(39) ⫽ 2.20, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ forms to the experimenter. The confederate introduced himself as
0.70. Eric Sorenson to each participant and struck up a conversation
To test whether self-efficacy and social worth mediated the about the weather. In the gratitude condition, Eric said “Thank you
effect of gratitude on changes in prosocial behavior, we followed for your feedback,” and in the control condition, he did not. The
Judd, Kenny, and McClelland’s (2001) guidelines for testing me- experimenter then dismissed Eric and gave each participant a
diation with OLS regression in within-subject designs. While second cover letter to edit, informing them that they could stop
controlling for the gratitude manipulation, self-efficacy did not whenever they were finished. After participants announced task
significantly predict increases in prosocial behavior (␤ ⫽ .01), completion, they filled out a brief survey.
t(37) ⫽ 0.06, p ⫽ .95, but social worth did (␤ ⫽ .33), t(37) ⫽ 2.03, Measures. Unless otherwise indicated, all items had a 7-point
p ⬍ .05. After controlling for social worth, the effect of the scale anchored at 1 ⫽ disagree strongly and 7 ⫽ agree strongly.
gratitude manipulation decreased from ␤ ⫽ .32, t(39) ⫽ 2.05, p ⬍ Prosocial behavior. The experimenter recorded the number of
.05 to ␤ ⫽ .22, t(37) ⫽ 1.30, p ⫽ .20. Including social worth minutes and seconds that participants voluntarily spent editing the
increased variance explained significantly by 10% from r2 ⫽ .10 second cover letter to help the student.
to r2 ⫽ .20, F(1, 36) ⫽ 4.35, p ⬍ .05. A bootstrap analysis Mediating mechanisms: self-efficacy and social worth. We
indicated that the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the measured self-efficacy with the six-item scale from Ryan et al.
size of the indirect effect (6.15) excluded zero, 95% CI [0.29, (1991; ␣ ⫽ .73). We measured social worth with four items
20.79]. Accordingly, the gratitude expression increased the proso- adapted from Keyes’s (1998) social integration scale, which we
cial behavior of making more calls to help the university by modified to clearly tap into the communal element of social worth.
strengthening fundraisers’ feelings of social worth, not by enhanc- We asked participants to report the extent to which they felt close
ing their feelings of self-efficacy. to the student, felt that the student values them as a person, felt
strong trust from the student, and felt important to the student (␣ ⫽
Experiment 4 .75).
Manipulation check. Participants rated the degree to which
Consistent with the findings in Experiments 1 and 2, our third the student’s message expressed gratitude and thanks (␣ ⫽ .91).
study provides further evidence that gratitude expressions increase The manipulation check and the social worth measure shared
prosocial behavior by enabling individuals to feel socially valued. 12.96% of their variance (r ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .01), and factor analyses
One strength of Experiment 3 is that we manipulated gratitude in once again supported the distinctiveness of the two measures.
a face-to-face interaction, rather than in an electronic communi-
cation, as in Experiments 1 and 2. At the same time, this manip- Results and Discussion
ulation presents a potential confound; it may be the interpersonal
interaction itself, rather than the grateful content of the interaction, Means and standard deviations by condition are displayed in
which causes the observed effects. To address this issue, we Table 4. Participants in the gratitude condition rated the interaction
conducted a fourth experiment in which we vary the grateful with the student as expressing more gratitude (M ⫽ 4.89, SD ⫽
content of an interpersonal interaction. In addition, to further 1.09) than did participants in the control condition (M ⫽ 4.40,
strengthen support for the mediating role of the communal mech- SD ⫽ 1.10), t(77) ⫽ 1.96, p ⫽ .05, d ⫽ 0.45. The gratitude
anism, we use a different measure to assess social worth. manipulation increased prosocial behavior: Participants in the grat-
itude condition spent significantly more time helping the student
on the second cover letter (M ⫽ 22.83, SD ⫽ 6.02) than did
Method
participants in the control condition (M ⫽ 19.83, SD ⫽ 6.34),
Participants, design, and procedures. Seventy-nine under- t(77) ⫽ 2.16, p ⫽ .03, d ⫽ 0.49. There were no significant
graduates at a Midwest university (25 male, 54 female) partici- differences between conditions in self-efficacy, t(77) ⫽ ⫺1.12, ns.
pated in this study for course credit in their introductory psychol- However, participants in the gratitude condition felt significantly
ogy classes. Participants arrived individually at the laboratory, and more socially valued (M ⫽ 3.84, SD ⫽ 0.81) than did participants
we informed them that we were working with the university’s in the control condition (M ⫽ 3.33, SD ⫽ 0.89), t(77) ⫽ 2.69, p ⬍
career center to understand peer feedback processes. We asked .01, d ⫽ 0.61.

Table 4
Experiment 4 Means by Condition

Prosocial behavior Self-efficacy Social worth Manipulation check

Condition M SD M SD M SD M SD

Gratitude 22.83 6.02 4.79 0.82 3.84 0.81 4.89 1.09


Control 19.83 6.34 4.59 0.76 3.33 0.89 4.40 1.10

Note. Gratitude n ⫽ 40; control n ⫽ 39.


GRATITUDE EXPRESSIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 953

To test whether social worth mediated the effect of gratitude on be sufficiently potent to influence helpers’ efforts on behalf of the
prosocial behavior, we used the same procedures as in the previous larger groups to which beneficiaries belong. This evidence dove-
experiments. A hierarchical OLS regression analysis showed that tails with research demonstrating spillover effects of grateful feel-
while the gratitude manipulation was controlled for, social worth ings, which encourage individuals to engage in upstream reciproc-
predicted higher prosocial behavior (␤ ⫽ .34), t ⫽ 3.48, p ⬍ .01. ity by “paying forward” help to other beneficiaries (Bartlett &
Including social worth increased variance explained significantly DeSteno, 2006). Our findings complement this line of research by
by 6% from r2 ⫽ .06 to r2 ⫽ .12, F(1, 76) ⫽ 5.75, p ⫽ .02, and demonstrating that expressions of gratitude, not only experiences
controlling for social worth reduced the effect of the gratitude of gratitude, have spillover effects on prosocial behavior. As such,
manipulation from ␤ ⫽ .24, t(77) ⫽ 2.16, p ⫽ .03 to ␤ ⫽ .16, our research suggests that gratitude expressions may have impor-
t(75) ⫽ 1.43, p ⫽ .16. In a bootstrap analysis, the 95% bias- tant theoretical and practical implications for encouraging proso-
corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effect (1.00) ex- cial behaviors that promote cooperation (see also Nowak & Roch,
cluded zero, 95% CI [.16, 2.27]. 2007).
These contributions must be qualified in light of several impor-
General Discussion tant limitations of our research. First, there were inconsistencies
across studies in the effects of our gratitude manipulations on
Across four experiments, perceptions of social worth mediated self-efficacy. In Experiment 3, the manipulation had equally strong
the effects of beneficiaries’ gratitude expressions on helpers’ effects on self-efficacy and social worth. However, in Experiments
prosocial behavior. The experiments showed these effects for 1 and 2, the manipulation had stronger effects on social worth than
prosocial behavior directed toward the same beneficiary (Experi- on self-efficacy. And in Experiment 4, the manipulation affected
ments 1 and 4), a different beneficiary (Experiment 2), and a social worth but did not influence self-efficacy. On one hand, the
university (Experiment 3). In addition, gratitude expressions in- relatively weak effects on self-efficacy in three of our four exper-
creased both the initiation and maintenance of prosocial behavior, iments may be an artifact of the gratitude manipulations that
motivating participants to provide help a second time when asked prevented us from detecting a mediating role of self-efficacy. On
(Experiments 1 and 2) and to persist longer in their current helping the other hand, it is possible that gratitude expressions are simply
activities without being asked (Experiments 3 and 4). These con- less likely to influence self-efficacy than social worth. Future
vergent effects on objective prosocial behaviors are important, research is necessary to resolve these competing interpretations.
given that the majority of gratitude research has focused on psy- Furthermore, beyond self-efficacy, social worth, and affect, there
chological effects, leading psychologists to call for more research may be additional mechanisms through which gratitude expres-
on its behavioral effects (Tsang, 2006). The present research sions motivate prosocial behavior. For example, it will be worth-
answers these calls by demonstrating the causal impact of gratitude while to examine whether gratitude expressions promote prosocial
on helpers’ concrete, observable prosocial behaviors. The consis- behavior by increasing helpers’ feelings of self-esteem and their
tently strong effects of relatively small gratitude manipulations are perceptions of reciprocity, strengthening their confidence that their
noteworthy (Prentice & Miller, 1992). In our first two experiments, efforts will be repaid (McCullough et al., 2001). In fact, in light of
a mere expression of thanks more than doubled the likelihood that the perspective from sociometer theory that self-esteem can serve
helpers would provide assistance again (from 25% to 55% and as an indicator of one’s social worth (Leary & Baumeister, 2000),
from 32% to 66%). In our third experiment, gratitude produced it may be the case that gratitude expressions strengthen feelings of
more than 50% increases in the number of calls that the average social worth by building self-esteem. In the future, researchers
fundraiser made in a single week. In our fourth experiment, a could investigate this possibility that self-esteem is a micromedia-
single gratitude expression yielded an increase of 15% in the tor of the effects of gratitude expressions on social worth.
average amount of time spent helping. Second, we did not investigate moderators of the effects of
Our results reveal that gratitude expressions increase prosocial gratitude expressions on prosocial behavior. For instance, research
behavior through communal mechanisms rather than agentic has shown that gratitude expressions are more likely to motivate
mechanisms. In our experiments, although gratitude expressions helping among individuals with a high need for approval than
increased both feelings of self-efficacy and social worth, only among those with a low need for approval (Deutsch & Lamberti,
social worth explained the effects of gratitude expressions on 1986). Third, our manipulations created broad differences in the
prosocial behavior. These findings suggest that when helpers are level of gratitude expressions without attending to important vari-
thanked for their efforts, the resulting sense of being socially ations in their emotional and linguistic content. We recommend
valued, more than the feelings of competence they experience, are that researchers study how emotions communicated in facial and
critical in encouraging them to provide more help in the future. other nonverbal cues influence helpers’ reactions to gratitude ex-
Together, our experiments support a communal perspective on pressions, as well as subtle linguistic variations in the wording of
why gratitude expressions increase prosocial behavior. Further- gratitude expressions, such as in whether the content of the mes-
more, we did not find any evidence that these effects operate sage directly involves grateful emotions or whether it simply
through influencing helpers’ positive or negative affect. conveys that one has been helped.
Additionally, our second and third experiments showed that Finally, our research focused on the benefits of gratitude with
gratitude expressions had spillover effects on prosocial behaviors little attention to its costs. Researchers could explore whether and
toward other beneficiaries. This finding suggests that beneficia- when gratitude expressions violate humility norms, causing help-
ries’ gratitude expressions may prompt helpers to consider assist- ers to feel uncomfortable, or burdened and pressured (Graziano,
ing a broader group of beneficiaries (Batson, 1998). By signaling Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007), to assist to beneficiaries beyond
to helpers that their efforts are valued, gratitude expressions may a level that they find reasonable or useful. For now, our research
954 GRANT AND GINO

takes a meaningful step toward explaining why a little thanks can Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee,
go a long way: Small expressions of gratitude can motivate proso- K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of
cial behaviors by leading helpers to feel socially valued. contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53– 67.
Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007).
References Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person ⫻ situation perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583–599.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and commun- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
ion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005).
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy.
Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the rela-
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
tions between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Per-
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
sonality and Social Psychology, 89, 899 –913.
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psycholog-
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: ical Methods, 6, 115–134.
Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17, 319 –325. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2003). Health, supportive environments, and the
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, reasonable person model. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1484 –
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology 1489.
(Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 282–316). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well being. Social Psychology Quarterly,
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for 61, 121–140.
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho- Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. eling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bentler, P. M., & Dudgeon, P. (1996). Covariance structure analysis: Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of
Statistical practice, theory, and directions. Annual Review of Psychology, self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
47, 563–592. experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1– 62). San Diego, CA:
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Academic Press.
Carey, J. R., Clicque, S. H., Leighton, B. A., & Milton, F. (1976). A test Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happi-
of positive reinforcement of customers. Journal of Marketing, 40, 98 – ness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psy-
100. chology, 9, 111–131.
Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in
behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144 –158.
Psychology, 55, 211–229. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation
Cialdini, R. B. (1980). Full-cycle social psychology. Applied Social Psy- analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593– 614.
chology Annual, 1, 21– 47. McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and
Clark, H. B., Northrop, J. T., & Barkshire, C. T. (1988). The effects of its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes
contingent thank-you notes on case managers’ visiting residential cli- in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
ents. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 45–51. 1003–1015.
Clark, R. D. (1975). The effects of reinforcement, punishment, and depen- McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B.
dency on helping behavior. Bulletin of Personality and Social Psychol- (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249 –
ogy, 1, 596 –599. 266.
Deutsch, F. M., & Lamberti, D. M. (1986). Does social approval increase
McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J.-A., & Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude in
helping? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 149 –157.
intermediate affective terrain: Links of grateful moods to individual
Elliott, G. C., Colangelo, M. F., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). Mattering and
differences and daily emotional experience. Journal of Personality and
suicide ideation: Establishing and elaborating a relationship. Social
Social Psychology, 86, 295–309.
Psychology Quarterly, 68, 223–238.
McGovern, L. P., Ditzian, J. L., & Taylor, S. P. (1975). The effect of
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus
positive reinforcement on helping with cost. Psychonomic Society Bul-
burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-
letin, 5, 421– 423.
being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
377–389. Moss, M. K., & Page, R. A. (1972). Reinforcement and helping behavior.
Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reac- Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 360 –371.
tions to aid. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 27–54. Nowak, M. A., & Roch, S. (2007). Upstream reciprocity and the evolution
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of of gratitude. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sci- 274, 605– 609.
ences, 11, 77– 83. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005).
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychol-
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer- ogy, 56, 365–392.
ican Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive.
Goldman, M., Seever, M., & Seever, M. (1982). Social labeling and the Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160 –164.
foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 19 –23. Rind, B., & Bordia, P. (1995). Effect of server’s “thank you” and person-
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job perfor- alization on restaurant tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
mance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal 25, 745–751.
of Applied Psychology, 93, 108 –124. Rosen, S., Mickler, S. E., & Collins, J. E. (1987). Reactions of would-be
GRATITUDE EXPRESSIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 955

helpers whose offer of help is spurned. Journal of Personality and Social Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of
Psychology, 53, 288 –297. gratitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233–236.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred signifi- Tsang, J.-A. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behaviour: An experimental
cance and mental health among adolescents. Research in Community test of gratitude. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 138 –148.
and Mental Health, 2, 163–182. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persis- emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548 –573.
tence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Moti- White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of compe-
vation and Emotion, 15, 185–205. tence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Schulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms:
predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 832– 838. ogy, 37, 395– 412.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal
psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American sensemaking and the meaning of work. In B. M. Staw & R. Kramer
Psychologist, 60, 410 – 421. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 93–135). New
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non- York, NY: Elsevier Science.
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Received February 22, 2009
Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Revision received September 21, 2009
Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Accepted September 28, 2009 䡲

Correction to Ford and Collins (2010)

The article “Self-Esteem Moderates Neuroendocrine and Psychological Responses to Interpersonal


Rejection,” by Máire B. Ford and Nancy L. Collins (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
2010, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 405– 419), contained a misspelling in the last name of the first author in
the below reference. The complete correct reference is below. The online version of the article has
been corrected.
Stinson, D. A., Logel, C., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., Cameron, J. J., Wood, J. V., & Spencer,
S. J. (2008). The cost of lower self-esteem: Testing a self- and social-bonds model of health. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 412– 428.

DOI: 10.1037/a0019744

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy