ome tn te Is Gratitude a Moral Affect? Michael E. McCullough ‘National Institut for Healtheare Research and Southem Methodist University Robert A. Emmons University of California, Davis Shelley D. Kilpatrick National Institute for Healthcare Research David B. Larson National Institute for Healthcare Research Gratitude is conceptualized ase moral affect that is analogous to other moral emotions such as empathy sand uit Gratitude has 3 funetons that ean be conceplized 3 moclly eleva: (a) amoral baromete anctio (ie, tsa esponse to the perception tat one has been the beneficiary of another persons mora action) (b) amoral motive function (eit maivates the grateful pesca to behave prosoclally toward the benefactor and other people}; and (c) a moral reinforcer fonction (ie, when expressed, it encourages benefactors to bebe morally inthe fut). The personality and social factors ha are asscited with ratte are also consistent with a conceptuliation of graitde as an alfet tat is relevant wo people's ‘cognitions and behaviors in the moral domain, Grate is ot only the grstest of vines, but the parent of all he cots. —Cicero Ingrattude.. tam abomination Seneca ‘Across nearly all cultures and through most of human history, ‘gratitude has been treated as both @ normal and normative aspect ‘of personality and social life. Gratitude is a highly prized human 05) For children inthe 8- and 10/41-year-old groups the link between beliefs about controllability and gratitude Were much stronger (rs = .45 and .60, ps < .O1 and 001, respectively). These data suggest thatthe lnk between attributions ‘of responsibility for positive outcomes and gratitude probably solidifies between 7 and 8 years of age (s02 also Graham & Weiner, 1986, and Weiner & Graham, 1988, for reviews) Sensitivity 10 social desirability cues. In accounting for their own triumphs and successes, people are much more likely to ‘express gratitude or acknowledge the contributions of other people if they know that their accounts for their suocesses will be made public. Conversely, in accounting for successes in ways that peo- ple know witl remain private, they are less likely to thank others or acknowledge the assistance of others. Baumeister and Iko (1995), assigned students to wite about an oveasion in the previous 2 years when they succeeded at something important to them. Half ‘of respondents were instructed to put their names on thei writen accounts and were told that a group discussion would ensue in Which they would be asked to share their story aloud. Ina second condition, participants were instructed not to sign their writen Accounts, and they were not led to expect any public discussion of their stories Baumeister and Mko (1995) found that nearly ewice as many participants thanked or acknowledged the help of others in ac- ‘counting for their successes (Le., 47% for acknowledging direct help; 60% for acknowledging emotional support) when hey ex- pected to share their account publicly as did those who did not expect 10 share their account publicly (19% for acknowledging direct help: 35% for acknowledging emotional suppor). Thus, public expressions of gratitude might, at least in part, be more lavish than private expressions or experiences of gratitude because people are socially expected to share credit for their successes, Giving thanks might be one means of discharging this obligation, tis also possible that people are more likely to express gratinude publicly than privately because public expressions are potentially ‘so much better forthe benefactors standing with other people than are private expressions. Evaluation of the Moral Barometer Hypothesis ‘The empirical evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that gratitude is a moral barometer—an emotional response to having, received benefits from a person who rendered such benefits inten tionally. Because these data come from many research teams using. 4 variety of experimental and correlational methods, we can have some confidence in their robustness. Typically, grateful emotions land behaviors result from the perception that another human being ‘has acted to promote one's well-being. Expressions of gratitude can be caused by other factors also (Baumeister & ko, 1995). Gratitude is intensified by increased value and cost ofthe benefit, the intentionality with which the benefits rendered, andthe extent, to which the benevolence would have been expected on the basis of preexisting relational obligations (eg, relationship closeness oF status equality) The linkage between receiving a benefit rendered intentionally and gratitude appears to develop around 7 or 8 years of age. Prior t age 7, children are likely to feel gratitude simply as a result of having received some sor of positive benefit, regardless ofthe level of intentionality or the benefactors motives, In related vein, people apparently experience gratitide in a ‘variety of circumstances in which they received a positive outcome for which another human being was nor responsible. In such circumstances, it appears that beneficiaries perceive nonhuman ‘causal agents—whether God, fate, or some other force possessing itentionality—to have been responsible for conferring the benefit. ‘The experience of gratitude absent the inference that another ‘human being was responsible forthe benefit could be the focus for interesting research in the fur Hypothesis 2: Gratitude as Moral Motive The second hypothesis proceeding from the moral affect theory of gratitude is that gratitude is a moral motive, capable of ener- sizing moral (i.e. prosocial) behavior and inhibiting immoral behavior. We found three studies that were relevant to the moral ‘motive hypothesis. Gratitude as a Motivator of Prosocial Behavior ‘Two studies (Graham, 1988; Peterson & Stewart, 1996) were relevant tothe fist corollary ofthe moral motive hypothesis, that is, that people who have been made grateful by a benefit are more likely to behave prosocially toward the benefactor o other people jn ensuing interactions. Peterson and Stewart examined the psy- chological variables associated with psychosocial generativity among older adult women from a longitudinal sample of graduates, from Radcliffe College. Generativty is an Ericksonian construct, (€-g. Erickson, 1950) that encompasses the motivations to nurture, care for, and contribute to the welfare of other people and society CConcems with generativity typically become most salient in mid dle adulthood, Peterson and Stewar (1996) developed a projective measure of _generativity motivation by rescoring the women's responses tothe Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1938) from 1991. During an assessment that took place 17 years earlier (during young adult ‘hood), the Radcliffe women had completed a checklist of people who had influenced their lives. Peterson and Stewart recast re- sponses to this item into measures of the numberof (a) mentor, (parents, and (c) spouses or significant others who had signif ‘cantly influenced participans’ lives during young adulthood. Peterson and Stewart (1996) correlated the measure of generat- ivity motivation at midlife with the number of people whom respondents had cited as key influences in ther lives during young, adulthood. As predicted, generativty at midlife was positively correlated with the number of mentors reported as key ife influ ences during young adulthood (39) but was not significantly correlated with the number of parents (09) or significant others, (16) reported as key life influences. In other words, women who were most cognizant of having been influenced by mentors were considerably more motivated to be generative in midlife—17 years, later. These findings can be interpreted as evidence that people ‘who are aware that hey have benefited from the benevolence of other people are more likely to respond with greater motivation to care for others later in their own lives. Gratitude is one possible affective mediator of this link (and one tha Peterson and Stewart ‘mentioned in passing). Whethor gratitude was infact the affect that258 McCULLOUGH, KILPATRICK, EMMONS, AND LARSON mediated the observed link between the recognition of having benefited from the benevolence of mentors and generatvity mo: tivation could only be inferred and is by no means the only possible mediator of the mentoring-generatvity connection ‘A second study provides more direct evidence for the moral ‘motive hypothesis. Graham (1988) studied children’s expected responses to being selected for a sports team (described previous Jy), and she found thatthe extent to which respondents expected a child to fel grateful toward a team captain for choosing him or her ‘was correlated positively withthe extent to which they expected the child to reciprocate by giving the captain a gift. The corelation between expected gratitude and likelihood of giving the captain sift became stronger with age (rs = 34, 56, and .72 for /6-, 8, and 10/11-year-ols, respectively). Gratitude as an Inhibitor of Destructive Interpersonal Behavior We found one study (Baron, 1984) that was relevant to the second corollary of the moral motive hypothesis (Le, that feling {tefl inks people fom engaging in destuctive interpersonal ‘ehavion. In Baron's study, undergraduate students were paired ‘with confederates in a task in which they were instructed to simulate a coafict abou a work-related matter. Confederates were trained to provide persuasive arguments that allowed them 10 disagre cogently with participant" views regardless of their coa- tent During break in the experiment, the confederate engaged in ‘one of four conditions. In the contol condition, the confederate simply sat quietly during the break. Ina gift condition (presumed to elicit grate, the confederate offered the pantcipant apiece of candy. In the sympathy condition, the confederate attempted to explain that if he ad seemed “uptight” during the fst pat of the simulation, it was because of school-related stress. Finally, in the humor condition, the confederate showed the paticipaat Several amusing cartoons. Participants in the tree experimental conditions (gift, sym- pathy, and humor) reponed more postive moods fliowing the ‘experiment than did patcipants inthe control conition (however, the gift condition was only marginally different from the contol condition). Participants in the three experimental conitons te- ported liking the confederate more than did participants in the contol condition and also rated the confederate as more pleasant. Finally, participants inthe gift condition and the humor condition reported that they would be more likely to vse collaboration t0 resolve conflict inthe future than did participants inthe control condition. ‘These data indica thatthe dee experimental conditions en- hanced postive mood and seemed to facilitate positive resolutions to organizational confit. What is nor clear, however, i whether the gift condtion’s effects on enhancing participant’ percepions ofthe confederate (ie, ikng him and viewing him as pleasant) specifically were mediated by feelings of grattade. The effets of all dhe experimental conditions could be evidence for the general effect of positive mood on helping behavior (Carson, Chart, & “Miller, 1988). Thus, although the conclusion that inducing grat tude helps to inhibit destructive organizational confit is consis- teot with the data, the assumption thatthe gift-giving condition lice feclings of pratitade was not formally tested. Evaluation of the Moral Motive Hypothesis ‘To date, few researchers have used rigorous empirical methods to examine empirically whether gratitude can motivate moral behavior. Instead, research on reactions t0 aid and reciprocity — which would seem relevant areas for addressing the motivational value of gratitude—have been dominated by the assumption that the key motive for moral behavior in uch situations is inequity or Indebtedness (see Greenberg & Westcot, 1983; Shapiro, 1984). [Experimental manipulations and longitudinal studies that would permit researchers to examine whether the link between receiving benefit from a benefactor and the beneficiary's reciprocal be- havior is mediated by the beneficiary's gratitude would be partc- ularly valuable. Differentiating the unique effects of gratitude as a ‘moral motive from the general effects of postive mood on helping, ‘behavior (Cerlson ef al., 1988) also would be informative. Hypothesis 3: Gratitude as Moral Reinforcer ‘The third hypothesis proceeding from the moral affect theory of ‘atitude is that expressions of gratitude are moral reinforcers ‘Qualtaive researchers have noted that expressions of gratinude ‘can reinforce actions as diverse as volunteering to care for people living with HIV/AIDS (Bennett, Ross, & Sunderland, 1996) and kidney donation (Bernstein & Simmons, 1974). Conversely, peo- ple evaluate ungrateful individuals unfavorably (Stein, 1989) ‘These observational studies suggest that people might find expres- sions of gratitude to be reinforcing. Indeed, some people might engage in prosocial behavior partially in hopes of eliciting grati- tude from the beneficiary. Moreover, it seems that benefactors typically find expressions of ingratitude to be quite aversive [Experimental data corroborate these qualitative observations Benefactors who are thanked for their efforts in rendering benefits toa beneficiary are willing to give more and work harder on behalf of others than are benefactors who have not been thanked fr their prior efforts. R. D. Clark (1975); Goldman, Seever, and Seever (1982); and Moss and Page (1972) all found that adults who were thanked for helping a confederate by giving the confederate direc- tions were much more likely to help another confederate in the near future (e.g, a person who dropped his or her books in the street) than were benefactors who were rebuked for giving help to the first confederate (but see M. B. Harris, 1972, for failure to replicate). Moreover, participants who were thanked for helping a confederate by accepting electric shocks for the confederate con- tinued to receive shocks for the confederate at a higher rate than ‘were participants who were not thanked initially (McGovern, Ditzian, & Taylor, 1975). ‘Applied researchers also have found that expressions of grat tude can reinforce moral behavior. lark, Northrop, and Barkshire (1988) attempted to increase the frequency with which case man- agers paid visits to adolescent clients in a residential treatment program. During a 20-week baseline observation period, 43% of, the adolescents were visited weekly by their case managers. After the observation period, the residential units began to send thank you leters to case managers after they visited their clients. During the 20-week period during which the residential units sent thank you notes, nearly 80% of clients were visited by their case man- agers each week. During a 10-week reversal period (during which no thank-you leters were sent following visits), the rates of weeklyGRATITUDE, 259 visitation dropped back to roughly thir initial levels (Le. approx- imately $0% of clients were visited weekly) (Other field experiments indicate thatthe reinforcement effects of gratiude expressions extend into the economic arena also. Restaurant bills on which the server writes “thank you” produce ‘ips that are as much as 11% higher (Rind & Bordia, 1995) than do bills without an expression of gratitude. Including thank-you notes, in mail surveys typically increases response rates (Maheux, Le- ault, & Lambert, 1989), In another study (Carey, Cieque, Leigh- ton, & Milton, 1976), active customers of a single jewelry store ‘who received a telephone call to thank them for their business spent more in the store during the next month than did customers, ‘who did not receive such a call tis interesting thatthe customers, who were called to be thanked also spent more than customers who received a call both to thank them for their business and to ‘announce that the store would be having a 20% off sale during the ‘next 2 months. Although an impartial observer might question ‘whether leaving a larger tip for & server or shopping in a certain sore has any moral relevance, the recipient of such benevolent behavior would judge such actions as contbuting to his or her well-being. AS a resll, from a local perspective such actions would have moral overtones, Just as expressions of gratitade appear to be reinforcing for ‘benefactors, ingratitude typically is experienced as quite aversive. Suls, Witenberg, and Gutkin (1981) instructed 151 students from Grades 1, 3, and 5, as well as college students, to read four vignettes in which a protagonist either was or was not helped by another person. In sponse, the protagonist either helped the other person or did not help the other person. ‘Thus, the vignettes, represented the cells in a 2 X 2 experimental design, Across all four age groups, protagonists who did not reciprocate after receiv ing help were judged more unfavorably than were the protagonists, in any of the other three combinations of help received and help given Reactance Effects Associated With Inappropriate Expressions of Gratitude Although expressions of gratitude typically are reinforcing (and expressions of ingraitude usually are aversive), Carey et al.'s (1976) findings suggest that expressions of gratitude that are coupled with attempts to take advantage ofthe benefactors gen- crosity (eg, following an expression of gratitude with an attempt (o entice the customer to spend more money in the store) can produce reactance. Expressions of gratitude also appear to produce reactance when used as substitucs for apologies. Mehrabian (1967) observed that in social interactions in which one person has hharmed or offended another person, the transpressor might avoid offering an apology and instead express gratitude for the vietim’s patience or forbearance. For example, rather than apologizing for being late toa meeting, the late individual might say, “Thanks for waiting,” which ean be viewed a an attempt to restructure the vietim’s coastrual ofthe situation so thatthe offender is viewed as, less culpable “Mehrabian (1967) instructed participants to indicate the extent to which they would have a negative atitude toward people who committed any ofa variety of interpersonal transgressions and then responded in one of three ways: (a) neglected to communicate about the offense at all, (b) apologized for the offense, and () ‘thanked the victim for his or her forbearance. Mebrabian found that when the offense was ambiguous (le., it was dificult 10 ‘determine whether an offense had truly been committed), respon- ents’ attitudes toward the offender were not affected by the type ‘of communication offered by the offender. However, when the offense was unambiguous (ie, it was clear thatthe offender was culpable for a transgression), respondents had negative atdtudes toward an offender who did not address the offense at all, had slightly les negative attitudes toward offenders who thanked the victims for their forbearance, and had the least negative atitudes toward offenders who apologized for their offenses. Thus, al- though expressing gratitude forthe forbearance of a person whom one has offended might yield more favorable interpersonal conse- 4vences than would not acknowledging the transgression at all, such expressions of gratitude are clearly inferior to apologizing. Individual Differences in the Reinforcement Value of Gratitude Expressions Other evidence (Deutsch & Lamberti, 1986) indicates that ‘thanking @ benefactor interacts with the benefactor’s own need for approval to influence how the benefactor responds to expressions of gratitude. Deutsch and Lambert instructed 46 female university students to complete a series of self-report questionnaire items that were ostensibly being validated for a new personality measure. In actuality, the items were from the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desi- ability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The experimenter as- signed participants to one of two conditions. In one condition, they Were thanked ina pleasant tone of voice that was accompanied by direet eye contact and a smile. In a second condition, they were not thanked, and instructions were given abruptly with no eye contac. ‘Then the experimenter left the room. Following the completion of the scale, participants completed five additional questionnaire items designed to assess their experience with the experiment and the experimenter. Then participants were instructed to walk to a room where the experimenter was waiting. On their way, parici- pats encountered a confederate. At that time the confederate dropped a stack of books and papers, The confederate bent down to begin picking up the books and papers. The key dependent variable was whether the participant helped to pick up the dropped books and papers. ‘Being thanked influenced participants’ appraisals ofthe exper: iment and experimenter, as well as their willingness to help the confederate. Compared to participants who were not thanked for participating, participants who were thanked fel (a) that the ex perimenter had been more personally encouraging, (b) that they benefited more from participating in the experiment, (c) that the experimenter benefited more from their participation, (8) that they leamed more about their own personality traits, and (e) that they ‘were more intrested in participating in future experiments, More over, 71% of the thanked respondents helped the confederate 10 pick up the dropped papers and books, whereas only 36% of the ‘unthanked respondents did so "The main effect of expressed gratitude was qualified by a significant interaction with need for approval (ie. social desirabil- ity), Thanked participants who had high need for approval viewed the experimenter as more encouraging than did participants with low need for approval. Furthermore, unthanked participants with high need for approval felt less benefited by the experiment than260 MeCULLOUGH, KILPATRICK, EMMONS, AND LARSON id uothanked panicipants who had low need for approval. Finally, ‘nearly all ofthe thanked participants witha high need for approval (86%) helped the confederate to pick up her books and papers, whereas only 50% of the thanked participants with low need for Approval helped the confederate, Participants with high and low need for approval were not so markedly different in their helping behavior when they had not been thanked for their participation carler (27% of high need for approval and 45% of low need for ‘approval participants helped after not being thankes). Evaluation of the Moral Reinforcer Hypothesis ‘The hypothesis that expressing gratitude to a benefactor encour- ages the benefactor to engage in yet more prosocial behavior (i. the moral reinforcer hypothesis) holds up well under empirical scrutiny. People who are thanked for their prosocial behavior are ‘more inclined to help their beneficiaries again. They are also more likely to help third parties after having been thanked by an initial beneficiary, These reinforcement effects are especially strong ‘among people with a high need for approval (Deutsch & Lambert, 1986). Some evidence suggests that benefactors react negatively to ‘expressions of gratitude that are too closely linked to further tempts to elicit prosocial behavior from the benefactor (Carey et al., 1976), Hypothesis 4: Gratitude Is Associated With Morally Relevant Personality Traits ‘The fourth hypothesis emerging from the moral affect theory of| ‘gratitude is that gratitude is related to personality variables that are linked with moral emotion and behavior. This hypothesis is sup- ported by the available empirical data, although relevant data are limited Gratitude and Agreeableness In a recent study, Saucier and Goldberg (1998) attempted to ‘identify stable dimensions of personality that are largely indepen- dent of the Big Five personality factors (i.e.. Openness. Consci- entiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism). Sac ier and Goldberg found that a personality trait consisting of the adjectives grateful and rhankful was moderately independent ofthe Big Five. Approximately 16% of the variability in this “grateful- ness" trait could be explained in terms of the Big Five (Multiple R = .40). People who rated themselves (or other people) as particularly grateful also rated themselves (or the people whom they were rating) as higher in agreeableness (r = 31). It is Interesting tht gratefulnes ratings also were correlated negatively (r= ~.24) with openness. The correlations with the othe Big Five constructs (conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) were pearly zero. ‘Agreeable people might be more grateful because they find gratitude to be a useful mechanism for maintaining postive rela- tionships. Agreeableness actually is a higher order personality factor that subsumes a variety of prosocial traits such as empathy, trust, and willingness to forgive. People who arc rated high in agrecableness tend to do well in social relationships, and their relationships are characterized by less conflict and gresteradjust- ‘ment (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). It is also pos- sible that people high in agreeableness are more prone to attribute their good fortune to the intentional behavior of other people— precisely the sor of attributions that would foster grateful emo- tions (Lane & Anderson, 1976; Tesser etal, 1968). ‘An additional correlate of gratnude is openness to experience (Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). People with high levels of gratitude tend to be rated (by themselves and others) as less open 10 experienc. It s more difficult to explain this association in light cof our conceptualzation of gratitude as a moral emotion. However, this association points to some additional contours of gratitude that ‘could be worthwhile to explore in fture research, perhaps initially, bby determining the facets of openness (Le, imagination-openniess ‘to fantasy, appreciation for art and beauty, receptivity to one's own feelings, willingness to try new activities, intellectual curiosity, and willingness to re-examine one's values; MeCrae, 1993-1994) to which gratiude is related most strongly. Narcissism and Ingratitude ‘Whereas agreesbleness is positively associated with gratitude, ‘other traits may inhibit gratitude. Ungrateful people regularly respond to others" beneficence with resentment, hostility, or indi ference. Writing from a psychodynamic perspective, Bergler (1945) described the psychopathology of ingratiuude speculating ‘on conscious and unconscious reasons why people might refrain from expressing appreciation for the benefits they receive (such as impugning the generous motives oftheir benefactor), (Other pryehologists have characterized conspicuously ungrate- ful people as possessing narcissistic personality traits. Narcissism, subsumes a set of waits including excessive self-importance, aro- ‘gance, vanity, greed for admiration, and entitlement (Kemnberg, 1975), Narcissists believe they are entitled to special rights and privileges, regardless of merit. They tend to be demanding and selfish. They also possess an exaggerated sense of deservingness, expecting special favors without assuming reciprocal responsibil: ities and expressing surprise and anger (“narcissistic rage") when ‘others do not do what they want Drawing on clinical observations, McWilliams and Lependort (1990) noted that narcissistic people are incapable of experiencing and expressing gratitude toward others. A core issue for narcisss tic people is an unvillingness to admit that they are not self sulficient. Because expressions of gratitude implicitly acknow!- ‘edge that one is dependent on other people for one's well-being, eratitude would be unpleasant for highly narcissistic people. Nar- Cississ also view themselves as superior to other people, so they might be reluctant to express gratitude because they believe that the benefacto's prosocial actions on the narcissists behalf are simply attempts to curry favor with the clearly superior and all- powerful narcissist. McWilliams and Lependorf suggested that instead of experiencing or expressing gratitude in such situations, narcissistic people choose other means of responding to those who hhave helped them, such as (a) expressing approval; (b) feigning indifference or even suggesting that by receiving the benefit con- ferred, the narcissist was allowing the benefactor to meet the benefactors own needs: (c) denying that he or she deserves the benefit; o (A) offering gratitude s0 excessive that it could not possibly seem sincere. ‘The empirical daa, albeit limited, support che hypothesized ink of narcissism to ingratitude, Farwell and Wohlwend-Lloyd (1998)