Owens 2013

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]
On: 06 March 2015, At: 18:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
The Journal of Genetic

Psychology: Research and
Theory on Human Development
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Positive Psychological
Interventions for Children:
A Comparison of Gratitude
and Best Possible Selves
Approaches
a b
Rhea L. Owens & Meagan M. Patterson
a
University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point
b
University of Kansas
Accepted author version posted online: 19 Feb
2013.Published online: 31 May 2013.
To cite this article: Rhea L. Owens & Meagan M. Patterson (2013) Positive
Psychological Interventions for Children: A Comparison of Gratitude and Best Possible
Selves Approaches, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on
Human Development, 174:4, 403-428, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.2012.697496
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2012.697496
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 18:48 06 March 2015
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2013, 174(4), 403–428
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Positive Psychological Interventions

for Children: A Comparison of Gratitude
and Best Possible Selves Approaches
RHEA L. OWENS
University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point
MEAGAN M. PATTERSON
University of Kansas
ABSTRACT. Many studies have found benefits of positive psychological interventions,

such as gratitude promotion or thinking about best possible selves, for adolescents and
adults. Almost no research, however, has been conducted on the efficacy of such interven-
tions for children. The authors’ primary goal was to compare the outcomes of gratitude
promotion and best possible selves interventions to a control condition, using a sample
of elementary school–aged children (N = 62, ages 5–11 years). Children participated in
once-weekly intervention sessions in which they were asked to draw a picture of something
for which they were grateful that day (gratitude condition), a future version of themselves
as happy and engaged (best possible selves condition), or something they had done that day
(control condition). Analyses of the content of children’s drawings indicated that children
of this age were capable of articulating things for which they were grateful and positive
future selves. Outcomes for the gratitude condition did not differ from the control condi-
tion; however, participants in the best possible selves condition showed greater gains in
self-esteem than those in the gratitude or control conditions.
Keywords: affect, gratitude, intervention, life satisfaction, positive psychology, possible
selves, self-esteem
Historically, much psychological research (particularly in the clinical psychol-

ogy domain) has focused on understanding psychopathology and maladjustment
(Kirschman, Johnson, Bender, & Roberts, 2009; Maddux, 2002). With the recent
advent of the field of positive psychology, there has been increased emphasis on
understanding positive aspects of human development, such as personal strengths,
creativity, and gratitude (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). As part of this
Address correspondence to Rhea L. Owens, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, Psy-

chology Department, Stevens Point, WI 54481, USA; rowens@uwsp.edu (e-mail).
403
404 The Journal of Genetic Psychology
emerging field, positive psychologists have developed interventions aimed at

increasing individuals’ happiness and life satisfaction (Kirschman et al., 2009;
Magyar-Moe, 2009; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Interventions based
on noting positive events in daily life, expressing gratitude, and using personal
strengths (i.e., becoming aware of an individual’s areas of strength, such as cu-
riosity or persistence, and seeking out opportunities to use these strengths in daily
life) have been found to increase happiness and decrease depressive symptoms in
adults (Seligman et al., 2005). The belief is that such interventions teach strategies
and perspectives that not only aid in times of need, but also help prevent future
difficulties (Kirschman et al., 2009).

The success of positive psychological interventions for adults suggests that
parallel interventions for children might be worthwhile. However, it is unrealis-
tic to assume that interventions and methods designed for use with adults can
be used with children without substantial modification; principles of social and
cognitive development must be considered when designing positive psychological
interventions for children (Kirschman et al., 2009). There exist a limited number
of positive psychological interventions aimed at youth. For example, Strengths-
Based Counseling for Adolescents (Smith, 2006) was created to improve outcomes
for clinically referred adolescents by incorporating the use of strengths into ther-
apy and daily life; however, this therapeutic approach is still in need of empirical
support. Several intervention programs have been designed to foster optimism
and hope (i.e., the ability to identify multiple ways to achieve goals and process-
ing the motivation to do so; Snyder et al., 1991) in children. Specific strategies
employed include reading stories about characters high in hope, writing personal
hope stories, and discussing future goals with a hope buddy (McDermott et al.,
1996, described in McDermott & Hastings, 2000; Pedrotti, 2000). Thus, research
on positive psychological interventions for children is limited, but promising.
Two constructs that have demonstrated effectiveness in interventions with
adults and adolescents are gratitude and best possible selves; positive psychologi-
cal interventions involving these constructs have not, however, been tested with ex-
clusively child samples. In the present study we examined the effectiveness of two
developmentally appropriate positive psychological interventions—expressing
gratitude and imagining best possible selves—with elementary school–aged
children.
Gratitude
Gratitude can be defined as an emotion that arises from experiencing a positive

outcome, such as receiving a gift or experiencing natural beauty, particularly when
this outcome arises from the intentional behavior of another person (Emmons
& McCullough, 2003). Individuals high in gratitude tend to exhibit a variety
of positive states and outcomes, including high levels of positive affect and life
Owens & Patterson 405
satisfaction (Froh, Yurkewicz, & Kashdan, 2009; McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang,
2002; Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003). Moreover, with adult samples,
expressing gratitude has also been linked to greater optimism, higher energy,
and fewer reported physical symptoms (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). These
findings of positive correlates of gratitude have led researchers to examine the
impact of experimentally manipulated gratitude on outcomes through gratitude
interventions (as discussed subsequently).
Expressing gratitude likely promotes positive emotions and life satisfaction
for a number of reasons. Expressing gratitude is believed to facilitate the act of
savoring positive experiences, people, and things (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006),
while simultaneously preventing the perceiver from taking these positive aspects
of life for granted (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). Thus, gratitude
provides the opportunity to receive the greatest possible amount of satisfaction
and joy from positive circumstances. The act of expressing gratitude is also inher-
ently incompatible with negative affect and therefore may block the expression of
negative emotions (McCullough et al., 2002). Further, the expression of gratitude
can serve as an adaptive coping strategy by reframing difficulties in a positive light
(Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). Thus, experiencing and express-
ing gratitude may lead to increased positive affect, decreased negative affect, and
increased life satisfaction.
Many educators and parents have expressed interest in the possible benefits
of gratitude for young children (Bronson & Merryman, 2010). For example, an
article in a popular American parenting magazine presented strategies for instilling
gratitude in children as young as 3 years of age (Latvala, 2007). There are also a
number of books written for young children aimed at facilitating gratitude, such as
I’m Thankful Each Day (Hallinan, 2001) and Gratitude Soup (Rosewood, 2009).
Empirical research indicates that parents encourage gratitude-related behaviors,
such as saying “thank you” after receiving an object or other benefit, in children
as young as 2 years of age (Greif & Gleason, 1980). Parents and other adults may
not, however, emphasize the reasons why thanks should be given in a particular
situation (e.g., discussing the giver’s intentions) and thus such encouragements
may facilitate superficial polite responses rather than true gratitude (Bono & Froh,
2009). In addition, whether gratitude is as beneficial for children as it is for
adolescents and adults has not been explored in empirical research.
Developmental research on gratitude. Recent research indicates that children as

young as 6 years of age can recognize some benefits of positive thinking (Bamford
& Lagattuta, 2012), but did not examine children’s perceptions of the benefits of
gratitude specifically. Some gratitude researchers have suggested that, due to its
cognitive complexity, gratitude is likely to emerge between 7 and 10 years of age
(Froh, Kashdan, Ozimkowski, & Miller, 2009). Other researchers have posited
that gratitude may emerge as early as 4 years of age, following the development
of theory of mind understanding (McAdams & Bauer, 2004). Extant research

indicates that young children understand at least some aspects of gratitude. For
example, Graham and Barker (1990) demonstrated that 4- and 5-year-old children
were aware that a child who received help on a task would feel more gratitude than
a child who did not receive help, and 4- and 5-year-old children’s ratings of the
pleasantness and arousal level (i.e., the level of activity or excitement associated
with this emotional state) of gratitude have been shown to be similar to adults’
ratings (Russell & Paris, 1994). Four-year-old children were also able to state
something for which they were thankful in response to an open-ended gratitude
prompt (Gordon, Musher-Eizenman, Holum, & Dalrymple, 2004).

However, some aspects of gratitude understanding may require greater cog-
nitive development or interpersonal experience to understand fully. For example,
Russell and Paris (1994) found that even 7-year-old children (the oldest children
included in their study) struggled to articulate a situation in which a child would
experience feelings of gratitude. In a study of 5–11-year-old children, Graham
(1988) found that children in all age groups reported that a child would feel more
grateful toward another child who had committed a kind act intentionally than
toward a child who committed the same act unintentionally (i.e., because a rule
required him to do so), but that this effect was stronger for older than for younger
children.
In addition to possible developmental differences in children’s understanding
of gratitude, there may be differences in the targets of children’s gratitude. Gordon
et al. (2004) examined the content of American children’s gratitude statements
through a nationwide in-class essay assignment. When asked to report what they
were grateful for, older (9–12 years old) children were more likely than younger
(4–8 years old) children to report gratitude for a variety of people and interpersonal
relationships, including family members, friends, teachers, police, and firefighters
(Gordon et al., 2004).
Group differences in gratitude. As with age, research indicates that gender may be
related to gratitude. Froh, Yurkewicz, et al. (2009) found that early adolescent girls
reported experiencing slightly more gratitude than boys, but that boys appeared
to benefit more from perceiving gratitude than girls did. In addition to overall
levels of gratitude, gender may impact reported sources of gratitude. In Gordon
et al.’s (2004) study of children’s responses to an open-ended gratitude prompt,
boys were more grateful for material objects than girls, whereas girls expressed
more gratitude for interpersonal relationships (e.g., family members, friends) than
did boys.
Gratitude interventions. Gratitude interventions typically take one of two forms.

In the first type of intervention, often referred to as counting blessings, participants
simply enumerate a list of things for which they are grateful (e.g., in a journal
entry). The second type of gratitude intervention adds an interpersonal component;
for example, participants are asked to write a letter to a person to whom they feel
grateful and deliver or read the letter directly to that person. Although a number
of gratitude interventions have found positive effects, recommendations regarding
the most effective format, frequency, and dose for gratitude interventions remain
unclear (Emmons & Mishra, 2011).
Interventions focused on expressing gratitude have been shown to increase
adults’ and adolescents’ subjective well-being (Emmons & McCullough, 2003;
Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008). For example, expressing gratitude has been
linked to increases in positive affect in adults, both immediately following the
intervention and several weeks or one month later (Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon
& Lyubomirsky, 2006). In adolescents, gratitude may also predict motivation to
contribute to one’s community or society. Froh, Bomo, and Emmons (2010) found
that adolescents’ gratitude predicted social integration (i.e., an individual’s desire
to use strengths for the benefit of others and give back to society) six months
postintervention.
In one of the few published studies of a gratitude intervention involving child
participants, Froh, Kashdan, et al. (2009) tested a gratitude intervention on a
combined sample of children (3rd grade students) and adolescents (8th and 12th-
grade students). Participants in the gratitude intervention wrote a letter to someone
for whom they were grateful and delivered the letter to them in person. Froh and
colleagues found that the intervention was effective in promoting gratitude and
positive affect relative to a control condition, but only for youth who were low in
positive affect prior to the intervention.
The results of these studies indicate that interventions focused on identifying
and contemplating sources of gratitude can have positive effects on outcomes for
adults and adolescents. However, only one extant study (Froh, Kashdan, et al.,
2009) examined the effects of a gratitude intervention with child participants, and
in that study child participants were from a limited age range (only 3rd grade
students) and were combined with adolescent participants for data analyses, lim-
iting the generalizability of the findings. Thus, in the present study we sought to
extend extant research by examining the effectiveness of a gratitude intervention
with a sample comprised entirely of elementary school-aged children.
Possible Selves
Possible selves are views of the self that are not presently true, but might be
so in the future; individuals may have a number of possible selves, including those
that are desired or hoped for and those that are undesired or feared (Markus &
Nurius, 1986). Possible selves can serve a number of functions, including promot-
ing positive affect (Gonzales, Burgess, & Mobilio, 2001; King, 2001), regulating
behavior (Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004; Oyserman & Markus,
1990), and increasing well-being (King, 2001). Theorists have presented compet-
ing ideas as to why generating best possible selves is related to increased positive
affect, life satisfaction, and self-esteem. One explanation is that considering pos-
sible selves highlights the potential for growth and change, which may in turn
promote hope and other positive thoughts about the future (Markus & Nurius,
1986). Specifying a goal can also increase motivation, self-regulation, and behav-
iors that lead to self-improvement (King, 2001; Taylor, Neter, & Wayment, 1995),
which in turn leads to greater life satisfaction and self-esteem.
Developmental research on possible selves. In their initial theoretical description

of possible selves, Markus and Nurius (1986) noted that “development can be seen
as a process of acquiring and then achieving or resisting certain possible selves”
(p. 955). Although they asserted that possible selves are important for develop-
ment, Markus and Nurius did not address when in the life course possible selves
might emerge. Some researchers have argued that children can meaningfully con-
sider possible future selves as early as 4 years of age (Hart, Fegley, & Brengelman,
1993). Other researchers, however, suggested that the ability to generate possible
selves first develops in adolescence (Knox, Funk, Elliot, & Bush, 1998), perhaps
as a result of an emerging cognitive capability to think about hypothetical situa-
tions (Harter, 1990). Generating hypothetical variations of the self is viewed as a
key aspect of the identity development process taking place during adolescence,
providing an opportunity for the adolescent to generate ideas regarding what he
or she hopes to become (Knox et al., 1998). If these imagined self-evaluations are
negative, they could potentially lower self-esteem; if they are positive, they could
increase self-esteem. Consistent with Knox et al.’s views, the vast majority of
possible selves research has been conducted with adolescents. Research indicates
that considering possible selves can promote positive outcomes in junior high,
high school, and college students (Hock, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2006; Osyer-
man, Brickman, & Rhodes, 2007; Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006; Oyserman
et al., 2004; Oyserman, Terry, & Bybee, 2002); however, almost no extant research
has examined possible selves in younger students.
Group differences in possible selves. As with gratitude, research indicates there

may be gender differences in possible selves. In a study of possible selves gen-
erated by adolescents, Leondari, Syngollitou, and Kiosseoglou (1998) found no
differences in the number of positive possible selves generated by gender; how-
ever, girls were more likely than boys to identify a negative possible self that
referenced failure, but with a hint of optimism or a supportive environment. In a
study of possible selves related to education and occupations with urban youth,
Perry and Vance (2010) did not find significant gender differences in educational
possible selves; however, boys’ hoped-for and expected possible selves were gen-
erally lower in prestige than girls’. In a study of Latino youth, girls gave greater
priority to educational hoped-for selves than did boys, whereas boys placed greater
emphasis on occupational hoped-for selves (Yowell, 2000).
Knox et al. (1998) examined gender differences in relations between spe-

cific types of possible selves (e.g., occupational, educational, interpersonal) and
self-esteem among male and female adolescents. Several categories of hoped-for
possible selves were positively related to girls’ global self-esteem: self-oriented
personal descriptors (i.e., personal attributes such as confidence or happiness),
material or financial descriptors (i.e., having money or material possessions), ed-
ucation, occupations, interpersonal relationships, and physical appearance. Boys’
self-esteem, in contrast, was positively related only to hoped-for possible selves
in the domain of interpersonal relationships. Knox et al. suggested that girls’
self-esteem was more differentiated at this age because girls are typically more
psychologically mature compared to same-age boys.
Possible selves interventions. Existing possible selves interventions fall into two
broad categories. The first type of intervention, which is based on social psy-
chological research, focuses on desired and undesired possible selves. In these
interventions, participants are asked to discuss both positive (i.e., desired) and
negative (i.e., undesired or feared) possible selves. Participants are often also
asked to discuss their planned strategies for achieving the desired possible selves
and avoiding the undesired possible selves. These interventions have been found
to facilitate a range of positive outcomes. For example, students who participated
in an intervention targeting academic possible selves among low-income youth
demonstrated increased academic initiative, higher standardized test scores, and
improved grades, as well as decreased depression, absences, and school misbe-
havior (Oyserman et al., 2006). A subsequent two-year follow-up study of this
intervention found that participating in the intervention moderated the effects of
low parental involvement with school on students’ grades and school engagement
(Osyerman et al., 2007).
The second type of possible selves intervention is based on a positive psy-
chology framework. Rather than examining both desired and undesired possible
selves, these interventions focus on best possible selves. Best possible selves can
be described as imagined future self-concepts that are highly positive in nature,
often including a specification that the individual is engaged in activities that he or
she finds deeply rewarding and interesting (Seligman et al., 2005). A number of
positive psychological interventions conducted with adults and adolescents have
examined the influence of thinking about best possible selves. These interventions
have focused primarily on psychological well-being and academic outcomes. For
example, imagining the best possible self was associated with increased positive
affect for adults both immediately and three weeks postintervention (Sheldon &
Lyubomirsky, 2006).
As with gratitude interventions, a number of studies have found that possible
selves interventions can promote positive outcomes, but questions remain about
the specific type of possible selves that are most optimal. For example, Oyser-
man and colleagues (Oyserman et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2004) have argued
that possible selves are effective for promoting positive outcomes only when the
individual also formulates plausible strategies for achieving desired selves. In con-
trast, Gonzales et al. (2001) found that vaguely defined plans for achieving positive
possible selves had a greater impact on positive affect than more detailed plans.
Gonzales et al. posited that less detailed plans may allow the individual to focus
more on the desired end state than on the effort needed to achieve that goal, thus
producing higher levels of unmitigated positive affect (rather than the mix of pos-
itive and negative affect generated by more detailed planning). When considering
these opposing points of view, it is important to note that the type of possible self
that is most beneficial may depend on the desired outcome (e.g., behavioral change
versus improved mood). In addition, no extant research has examined whether the
most beneficial type of possible selves differs due to individual factors such as
gender, age, or socioeconomic status.
The Present Study
The primary goal of the present study was to compare the outcomes of
two positive psychological interventions (gratitude and best possible selves) to a
control condition, using a sample of elementary school–aged children. Specifically,
it was hypothesized that participants in the gratitude and best possible selves
conditions would show increases in positive affect, life satisfaction, and self-
esteem, but that participants in the control condition would not.
Positive psychological interventions with adults and adolescents typically
involve some sort of writing component (e.g., journaling, listing, letter writing;
Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh et al., 2008; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006).
Such writing-intensive activities may prove difficult for children. Froh, Kashdan,
et al. (2009) suggested that a more suitable gratitude intervention for children
might include the use of drawing to facilitate communication and maintain at-
tention. Thus, in the present study, drawing (rather than writing) was used as
the vehicle by which children recorded their gratitude sources and best possible
selves. Drawing has been used in a number of interventions with children (e.g.,
Freilich & Shechtman, 2010; Gibbons, 2010; Wright et al., 2006) and allows for
children to spend a reasonable amount of time on the intervention activity without
the potential language limitations involved with writing.
In addition to the overall effectiveness of the interventions, the content of the
gratitude and best possible selves drawings were of interest as well. Presently,
there is very little research examining what children report being grateful for
on a day-to-day basis, and previous research suggests that age and gender could
influence children’s reports (Froh, Yurkewicz, et al., 2009; Gordon et al., 2004).
It was hypothesized that, consistent with previous research, girls would be more
likely than boys to report gratitude for interpersonal relationships, whereas boys
would be more likely than girls to report gratitude for material objects.
For the best possible selves condition, previous research has produced con-
flicting conclusions as to whether producing a more realistic or attainable possible
self is more beneficial for producing positive outcomes than producing a less real-
istic possible self (Gonzales et al., 2001; Oyserman et al., 2006; Oyserman et al.,
2004), and thus the realism of children’s best possible selves was a variable of
interest. It was hypothesized that older children would report more realistic best
possible selves than younger children. Best possible selves drawings were also
coded for specific content; it was hypothesized that girls would be more likely
than boys to report best possible selves focused on societal concerns/religion (i.e.,
possible selves with an emphasis on helping others) based on previous research

indicating that girls place greater emphasis on helping in their occupational aspi-
rations than do boys (Post-Kammer, 1987; Weisgram, Bigler, & Liben, 2010).
Method
Participants
Participants were 62 children (30 boys, 32 girls), ages 5–11 years (M age =
7.35 years, SD = 1.73 years), recruited from after school care and summer day
camp programs in a suburban area in the Midwestern United States. An additional
18 participants were enrolled in the study but did not complete the minimum
required number of intervention sessions and thus were excluded from analyses.
This sample size is consistent with previous research exploring similar intervention
conditions (e.g., Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). The sample was 6% African
American, 84% European American, 5% Latino, and 3% other races. Although we
were not able to collect data on socioeconomic status from individual participants,
the schools from which participants were recruited served a middle- to lower-
middle-class population (percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price
lunch ranged from 10% to 53%). The three experimental conditions did not differ
in terms of participant gender (χ 2(2, N = 62) = 5.04), p = .08; race, (χ 2(6, N =
62) = 9.83, p = .13). Analysis for age indicated a significant overall difference,
F(5, 59) = 3.16, p = .049, but a follow-up Tukey HSD test indicated that no two
groups were significantly different from each other (p = .082). Age means and
standard deviations were as follows: control: M = 7.71, SD = 1.53; best possible
selves: M = 7.78, SD = 2.04; gratitude: M = 6.64, SD = 1.29.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from three after-school care sites (all operated by
the same community organization) and two summer day camp programs. Each of
the after-school care sites was assigned to an intervention condition (i.e., gratitude,
best possible selves, or control) and individual children at the summer day camp
programs were randomly assigned to an intervention condition. Recruitment letters
and consent forms were distributed to the parents or guardians of all children
attending the participating after school care and day camp programs. All children
whose parents returned signed consent forms and who themselves assented to
participate were included in the study.
Prior to the intervention, each child participated in an individual interview
session with a trained interviewer. In this session, each participant completed
measures of positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, and self-esteem. Children
then participated in a series of intervention sessions. Intervention sessions took
place once per week; the total number of possible intervention sessions varied by
site (from four to six), due to time limitations imposed by the sites. In addition,
some participating children did not complete all of the sessions offered at their
site due to absences on days when intervention sessions took place. The mean
number of sessions completed was not significantly different across conditions,
F(2, 59) = 2.35, p = .10 (Ms = 5.00, 4.61, and 5.12, SDs = 0.82, 0.78, and
0.78, for the gratitude, best possible selves, and control conditions, respectively).
In order to have their data included in analyses, each child must have completed
a minimum of four intervention sessions. For children who completed more than
four intervention sessions (64% of participants), only their first four sessions were
included in content analyses of the pictures produced during the intervention
sessions. Intervention sessions were completed in small groups (3 to 10 children
per group). In each intervention session, children were asked to draw a picture
specific to their intervention condition. After completing each drawing, the child
gave the drawing to a research assistant and was asked to describe the content
of the drawing (i.e., “What did you draw?”). The research assistant recorded the
children’s verbal description of what he or she had drawn. Posttest sessions began
on the day following the final intervention session and were completed within
one week of the conclusion of the intervention. Posttest sessions included the
four outcome measures assessed at pretest (i.e., positive and negative affect, life
satisfaction, and self-esteem).
Measures
Positive and negative affect. Positive and negative affect were assessed with the
Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al., 1999).
Children were asked to describe the extent to which they had experienced various
emotions (e.g., sad, excited) over the past few weeks, using a 5-point Likert-
type scale with response options ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all)
to 5 (extremely). Standardized definitions of all emotion terms were available
if children indicated that they did not know the meaning of a particular term.
The scale includes 15 positive and 15 negative items; thus, possible scores for
each subscale ranged from 15 to 75, with higher scores indicating higher levels
of positive or negative affect. The PANAS-C has strong psychometric properties,
including interitem reliability and convergent and divergent validity with measures
of depression and anxiety (Laurent et al., 1999).
Life satisfaction. Children’s life satisfaction was measured using a modified ver-
sion of the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS;
Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2003). Children were asked to report on how pos-
itively or negatively they felt about various aspects of their lives (e.g., family,
school) and their lives in general. In the original instrument, a 7-point Likert-type
scale is used, with verbal labels for each point on the scale ranging from 1 (terrible)
to 7 (delighted). In the modified version, seven line drawings of faces ranging in
expressed emotion from very negative (large frown; scored as 1) to very positive
(large smile; scored as 7) were used to make the options more understandable for
younger children. Measure scores were calculated by summing responses for the
six items; thus, possible scores ranged from 6 to 42, with higher scores indicating
greater life satisfaction. Previous research indicates that the BMSLSS has ade-
quate interitem reliability and convergent and discriminant validity with measures
of positive affect, negative affect, and other measures of life satisfaction (Seligson
et al., 2003).
Self-esteem. Children’s global self-esteem was measured using the global subscale
of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982). For each item,
children were presented with two statements, one indicating high self-esteem
(e.g., “some kids are happy with themselves as a person”) and one indicating low
self-esteem (e.g., “other kids are often not happy with themselves”). Participants
are asked to indicate which statement is more true of them, and whether that
statement is “sort of” or “really” true of them. Thus, each item receives a score
from 1 (negative statement really true of the self) to 4 (positive statement really
true of the self). Measure scores were calculated by summing responses for the
six items; thus, possible scores ranged from 6 to 24, with higher scores indicating
higher global self-esteem. The Perceived Competence Scale for Children has been
widely used with elementary school–aged children and demonstrates appropriate
interitem and test-retest reliability (Harter, 1982, 1999).
Intervention Conditions
Gratitude condition. In the gratitude condition (n = 22), children were asked to

draw pictures of something for which they were grateful. Specifically, children
were given the following instruction: “Think about your day. What is something
that you are thankful for that happened today? Please draw a picture of that.” The
wording of this prompt was based on the prompt used by Froh et al. (2008) in a
gratitude intervention with early adolescents.
Best possible selves condition. In the best possible selves condition (n = 23),
children were asked to draw pictures of an imagined future situation in which
they were at their best (i.e., participating in a pleasurable and engaging activity).
Specifically, children were given the following instruction: “Imagine the future
where you are the best you can possibly be. Imagine yourself in a way that you’re
both happy and interested. Draw a picture of that.”
Control condition. In the control condition (n = 17), children were asked to draw
pictures of something they had done that day. Specifically, the children were given
the following instruction: “Draw a picture of something you did today.”
Content Analyses of Pictures
Gratitude condition. For participants in the gratitude condition, a coding scheme

was developed to categorize children’s responses according to the source of their
gratitude. An initial set of categories was developed based on categories used by
Gordon et al. (2004). The coding system was then modified to reflect the present
data set. Several categories used by Gordon et al. were not used due to infrequency
of occurrence (e.g., own life, peace) and several additional categories were added
due to the prevalence of responses within these categories. Two independent raters
coded each picture; discrepancies between raters were resolved via discussion.
See Table 1 for categories, exemplars, and interrater reliability data.
Best possible selves condition. For participants in the best possible selves condi-
tion, children’s depicted selves were coded as either realistic or unrealistic, as this
is a dimension that has been considered influential in previous research (Gonzales
et al., 2001; Oyserman et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2004). Two independent raters
coded each picture as reflecting a realistic or unrealistic possible self (Cohen’s
κ = .90). Discrepancies between raters were resolved via discussion. The pictures’
content was also coded with categories developed by Knox et al. (1998) for cate-
gorizing desired possible selves, including interpersonal relationships, education,
occupations, and societal concerns/religion (e.g., helping others). The full set of
Knox et al.’s desired possible selves codes was used for initial coding; however,
some codes were not represented in the present data set. Two independent raters
coded each picture and discrepancies were resolved via discussion. See Table 2
for categories, exemplars, and interrater reliability data.
Results
Gratitude Picture Content
The most frequently occurring gratitude categories were activities (e.g., play-
ing sports), people (e.g., family members, friends), and pets/animals (see Table 1).
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine possible
TABLE 1. Gratitude Themes
Interrater
reliability
Overall Participant (Cohen’s
Theme frequency frequency κ) Example of theme
Activities 29.5% 72.7% 0.89

Physical 22.7% 59.1% 0.90 I’m thankful that we had field
activities day and I got first place on

frisbee throw and all the other
games I did.
Sedentary 8.0% 27.3% 0.92 I drew me reading my favorite
activities book, Garfield.
People 28.4% 68.2% 0.91
Friends 14.8% 45.5% 0.95 I’m thankful for my friends
Morgan and Keegan. They
are playing in a rainbow. We
play outside but we don’t see
a rainbow.
Family 8.0% 31.8% 1.00 Picture of my mom’s birthday. I
members am thankful for my mom and
her birthday is in April.
Other people 8.0% 22.7% 0.82 Me going to my classroom at
the state assessments. There
is teachers behind the door
saying you can do it, you can
do it!
Pets–animals 25.0% 54.5% 0.97 I’m thankful for my horse
because she gives me rides
and she runs around with me
and sometimes she’s hungry.
School–learning 14.8% 45.5% 0.90 I drew my math test because I
like doing math.
Material objects 14.8% 40.9% 0.90 I got my new shirt and I’m
wearing it right now because
it’s new; it’s comfy.
Earth–nature– 14.8% 40.9% 1.00 I’m thankful that it rained and
weather everything grew and I got to
see a stream go down.
Places 13.6% 36.7% 0.89 I like that we go outside a lot. I
drew the playground.
Events–holidays 11.4% 40.9% 0.88 I’m going to the Blazers game.
God–church– 6.8% 22.7% 1.00 Me at church . . . thankful for
religion God.
Basic needs 2.3% 9.1% 1.00 Me sleeping on my bed. I got to
sleep in.
Note. Overall frequency indicates the percentage of total gratitude pictures including instances
of this theme. Participant frequency indicates the percentage of participants who included this
theme in at least one of their gratitude pictures. Responses could receive more than one code,
and thus totals do not sum to 100%.
TABLE 2. Best Possible Selves Themes
Interrater
Overall reliability
fre- Participant (Cohen’s
Theme quency frequency κ) Example of theme
Self-oriented 43.5% 87.0% 0.95 I drew me being a good sport and

personal good at soccer. I’m kicking the ball
descriptors in the net. My dad is watching me

and the other parents are watching
their kids. It makes me happy
because I’m being a good sport.
Hobbies- 42.4% 74.0% 0.83 Me planting seeds on a sunny day in
interests the future. It makes me happy
because flowers grew and I like
flowers. I’m at my best because I
put seeds in the ground to grow
and help the earth.
Interpersonal 22.8% 52.2% 0.84 Picture of my family this summer
relationships going swimming. Me and my
family are having a good time.
Occupation 21.7% 43.5% 0.94 This is me older building houses. I’m
taking over my Dad’s business.
Athletics 16.3% 39.1% 0.96 Playing soccer and I’m going to kick
it in the goal. It makes me happy
because I got a point. I’m at my
best because I’m doing good.
Material- 15.2% 39.1% 0.85 A big house, an expensive house with
financial my family and a dog. I’m happy
descriptors because I have a ton of money and
cause I have a good family. That’s
why they are all smiling.
General 12.0% 21.7% 0.95 I’m skating—I have a good feeling
success- about skating. I feel so good that
recognition I’m throwing flowers at me.
Societal 4.3% 13.0% 1.00 I’m being a missionary! I’m helping
concerns- people. And I’m happy because
religion I’m helping people.
Education 3.3% 8.7% 1.00 Myself doing science. I love science.
It’s all about space—I love space.
It makes me happy because I learn
a lot about space. I’m at my best
because I’m doing my calculations
and studying the planets.
Physical 1.1% 4.5% 1.00 Me as a teenager standing in front of
Appearance school. I’m going to high school.
It’s cool. I look pretty.
Note. Overall frequency indicates the percentage of total best possible selves pictures including
instances of this theme. Participant frequency indicates the percentage of participants who
included this theme in at least one of their best possible selves pictures. Responses could
receive more than one code, and thus totals do not sum to 100%.
effects of age and gender on the frequency of reporting each of the ten grat-
itude categories (activities, people, pets–animals, school–learning, material ob-
jects, earth–nature–weather, places, events–holidays, God–church–religion, and
basic needs). For the MANOVA, gender (male vs. female) served as the indepen-
dent variable, with age (in years) as a covariate and the number of times each
child mentioned each theme (possible score range from 0 to 4) as the dependent
variable. Results indicated no significant multivariate age or gender effects.
Best Possible Selves Picture Content

Children’s best possible selves pictures were first coded for whether the
content was realistic (e.g., “This is me older building houses. I’m taking over my
Dad’s business”; “Symbols having to do with veterinary stuff. It makes me happy
because I love working with animals. I don’t want to sell or just feed them, but
I want to help them. I’m at my best because it’s one of my skills—working with
animals. I do very well with animals”) or unrealistic (e.g., “I have a train in the sky
and a helicopter. I’m a wizard. I have a laser and an alien. The wizard’s defending
the place”; “I am making Star Wars – the movie. And the people I made light
sabers. I’m making robots and the other people are alive”). The majority (78%)
of responses reflected realistic content. In order to examine possible effects of
age and gender on the frequency of reporting realistic best possible selves, an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with gender (male vs. female) as
the independent variable, with age (in years) as a covariate, and the number of
times each child gave a realistic possible self response (possible scores ranged
from 0 to 4) as the dependent variable. Results indicated significant effects of both
age, F(1, 20) = 5.69, p = .027, and gender, F(1, 20) = 5.42, p = .030. Follow-up
analyses for age indicated that, contrary to expectations, the frequency of realistic
possible selves responding declined with age, β = −.42, t(22) = –2.10, p = .048.
Girls indicated realistic best possible selves more frequently than boys (M GIRLS =
3.75, SD = 0.46; M BOYS = 2.80, SD = 1.15).
The specific content of children’s reported best possible selves was also
coded. The most frequently occurring categories were self-oriented personal de-
scriptors (personal attributes such as confidence or happiness), hobbies–interests,
and interpersonal relationships (see Table 2). A MANOVA was used to examine
possible effects of age and gender on the frequency of reporting each of the nine
possible selves categories (self-oriented personal descriptors, education, occupa-
tion, material–financial descriptors, interpersonal relationships, hobbies–interests,
athletics, general success–recognition, societal concerns–religion, and physical
appearance). For the MANOVA, gender (male vs. female) was the independent
variable, with age (in years) as a covariate, and the number of times each child
mentioned each theme (possible score range from 0 to 4) was the dependent vari-
able. Results indicated significant effects of both gender, F(10, 11) = 3.10, p =
.038, and age, F(10, 11) = 3.00, p = .043.
Girls were significantly more likely than boys to identify best possible
selves involving societal concerns–religion, F(1, 20) = 7.69, p = .012 (esti-
mated marginal means M GIRLS = 0.49, SD = 0.46; M BOYS = 0.01, SD = 1.15);
and marginally more likely than boys to identify best possible selves involving
education, F(1, 20) = 3.94, p = .061 (estimated marginal means M GIRLS = 0.38,
M BOYS = −0.001).
MANOVA results showed significant effects of age in three domains: occu-
pation, F(1, 20) = 5.89, p = .025; hobbies–interests, F(1, 20) = 8.50, p = .009;
and societal concerns–religion, F(1, 20) = 4.90, p = .039. Follow-up analyses
were conducted using partial correlations controlling for gender. Results indicated
that reporting of best possible selves in the domains of occupation and societal
concerns–religion increased with age, whereas reporting of best possible selves in
the domain of hobbies/interests declined with age.
To examine the effect of realistic and unrealistic best possible selves on the de-
pendent variables (positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, and self-esteem),
a series of multiple linear regression analyses were conducted with gender, age,
and the total number of realistic best possible selves drawings as the independent
variables and the difference between pre- and post-test scores on positive affect,
negative affect, life satisfaction, and global self-esteem as the dependent variables.
Results indicated no significant effects of realistic versus unrealistic best possible
selves on change in any of the four outcome variables.
Intervention Efficacy
The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of
gratitude and best possible selves interventions on positive and negative affect,
life satisfaction, and self-esteem in a sample of elementary school–aged children.
All outcomes were assessed with a 3 Condition (gratitude, best possible selves,
control) × 2 Gender (male, female) × 2 Time (preintervention, postintervention)
repeated measures ANOVA, with the latter variable as within-subjects and age
(in years) as a covariate. See Table 3 for means and standard deviations for all
outcome measures.
Positive and negative affect. For positive affect, results indicated no significant
main effects or interactions. For negative affect, results again indicated no signif-
icant main effects or interactions.
Life satisfaction. Analyses for life satisfaction indicated only a marginally signif-
icant gender by time interaction, F(1, 55) = 3.80, p = .056. Girls’ life satisfaction
increased slightly over time, whereas boys’ life satisfaction decreased slightly over
time (see Table 3 for means). However, the gender by condition by time interaction
was nonsignificant, indicating that this trend was consistent across conditions.
TABLE 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Outcome Measures by Interven-

tion Condition and Gender
Best possible
Gratitude selves Control
Measure M SD M SD M SD
Positive affect
Preintervention
Male 60.86 11.65 50.60 13.02 58.75 8.68
Female 57.73 11.71 53.37 18.90 54.00 12.11
Combined 58.73 11.51 54.00 13.32 56.24 10.60
Postintervention
Male 61.43 8.94 58.27 11.16 54.00 10.78
Female 57.73 10.92 54.13 9.78 57.11 10.11
Combined 58.91 10.27 56.28 10.82 55.65 10.22
Negative affect
Preintervention
Male 39.86 16.43 33.73 11.06 29.63 10.01
Female 38.53 16.54 39.38 12.79 32.56 12.12
Combined 38.95 16.12 38.56 11.58 31.18 10.93
Postintervention
Male 37.43 10.28 29.20 11.33 31.25 10.81
Female 34.73 16.37 44.63 14.60 30.89 11.49
Combined 35.59 14.51 37.11 14.91 31.06 10.82
Life satisfaction
Preintervention
Male 32.86 5.98 30.80 2.70 29.13 4.26
Female 28.53 4.94 29.13 4.79 29.00 4.47
Combined 29.91 5.55 29.78 3.83 29.06 4.23
Postintervention
Male 28.71 6.45 31.13 2.95 30.13 4.55
Female 28.93 3.73 31.00 2.51 32.00 1.32
Combined 28.86 4.60 30.67 2.81 31.12 3.29
Global self-esteem
Preintervention
Male 20.71 3.04 19.67 3.92 20.38 3.58
Female 19.93 3.24 21.00 3.74 19.56 4.19
Combined 20.18 3.13 19.11 3.72 19.94 3.82
Postintervention
Male 19.86 2.80 22.07 2.34 20.25 3.37
Female 19.80 2.73 21.75 3.41 19.78 5.85
Combined 19.82 2.68 21.50 2.85 20.00 4.70
Self-esteem. Results indicated a significant time x condition interaction, F(2, 55) =

3.76, p = .029, η2 = .12. Follow-up paired-samples t tests indicated a significant
increase in global self-esteem over time in the best possible selves condition,
t(22) = −3.21, p = .004, but not in the gratitude or control conditions (ps > .50).
There were no other significant main effects or interactions. See Table 3 for means.
Discussion
Parents and teachers frequently express belief in the benefits of positive psy-
chological interventions, such as gratitude promotion, for preschool and elemen-

tary school–aged children (Bronson & Merryman, 2010; Latvala, 2007), despite
the lack of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of such interventions for chil-
dren at these developmental levels. The present study is one of very few studies
of positive psychological interventions to include elementary school–aged chil-
dren. In addition, a new method (drawing) was used to have children express their
gratitude sources and best possible selves. Drawing as an intervention could be
particularly useful for children who are too young to express themselves in writ-
ing, have learning disabilities or other challenges that limit their verbal abilities,
or are shy or uncomfortable talking with others.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of gratitude and
best possible selves interventions on elementary school–aged children’s positive
and negative affect, life satisfaction, and self-esteem. The gratitude intervention did
not appear to influence any of the measured outcome variables. There are several
possible explanations for this finding. The first is that the children in this sample
were too cognitively immature to understand the concept of gratitude, consistent
with previous assertions that the ability to understand gratitude emerges around
seven years of age (Froh, Kashdan, et al., 2009). However, we do not believe that the
findings of this study support this conclusion. Although the gratitude intervention
did not appear to impact any of the constructs measured, the pictures and verbal
explanations of those pictures provided by even the youngest participants in this
study suggest that participants were able to experience and express gratitude for
a variety of people, events, and things in their lives. Even the 5- and 6-year-olds
were able to consistently generate pictures of things for which they were grateful
and provide detailed descriptions to the researchers. Qualitatively, this suggests
children younger than seven are cognitively mature enough to experience and
express gratitude.
A second possible explanation has to do with the focus of the gratitude
intervention. We asked children to report something that they were grateful for
that day, rather than something they were grateful for more broadly. This prompt
was developed based on existing gratitude interventions (e.g., Froh et al., 2008)
with the goal of providing some guidance to children about how to complete the
gratitude task. However, the specific wording of the prompt may have steered
children toward a focus on activities and other immediate experiences, rather
than more general experiences or ongoing relationships. Indeed, expressions of

gratitude for people (including friends, family members, and teachers) were less
frequent than would be expected from previous research (Gordon et al., 2004).
Although this study extends the work of Gordon and colleagues and identified
what young children report being grateful for on a daily basis rather than in a more
global sense, it also suggests that children might receive greater benefits from a
gratitude intervention specifically focused on expressing gratitude for people and
interpersonal relationships.
In addition, age and gender effects were nonsignificant for the gratitude
intervention. Results did not support the hypothesis that girls would report a
greater amount of gratitude for relationships, and boys would more likely report
a greater amount of gratitude of material objects. Given the inconclusive results
of the intervention itself, it is possible the lack of gender and age findings was
a result of the design of the intervention; however, it is also possible that these
differences have not yet emerged among elementary school–aged children. Future
studies examining these factors would be beneficial.
Participants in the best possible selves condition experienced a significant in-
crease in global self-esteem from pre- to postintervention, indicating that thinking
about positive possible future selves may be beneficial to self-conceptions for chil-
dren of this age. However, life satisfaction and affect were unchanged. Consistent
with previous research with adolescents and adults (Gonzales et al., 2001; Hock
et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2004), this study indicates that producing an ideal
imagined future self may serve to reduce present insecurities and boost children’s
self-confidence.
One possible explanation for the finding of increased self-esteem in the best
possible selves condition is that possible selves are evaluative in nature and there-
fore affect the present evaluation of the self (Markus & Nurius, 1986). It is also
possible that, through participating in this intervention, children made connections
between their desired future selves and positive aspects of the present self (e.g.,
desire to become a veterinarian was linked to present skill in caring for animals)
and thus served to bolster self-esteem by emphasizing positive personal charac-
teristics or strengths. These processes may explain why considering best possible
selves appeared to influence self-esteem, but not life satisfaction or affect.
A secondary purpose of the present study was to examine the content of chil-
dren’s gratitude and best possible selves drawings to further understand the content
of these constructs for elementary school–aged children. Children most frequently
reported being grateful for activities (e.g., playing games, going swimming), peo-
ple (e.g., friends, parents, teachers), and pets. This study indicates that even young
elementary school–aged children are able to articulate things for which they are
grateful, an important first step toward being able to benefit from experiencing
gratitude.
Regarding the content of the best possible selves drawings, the most fre-
quently reported best possible selves category was self-oriented descriptors (i.e.,
personal attributes such as confidence, intelligence, or happiness), followed by

hobbies/interests, interpersonal relationships, and occupations. The frequency of
self-oriented personal descriptors may have been elevated given that the wording
of the best possible selves prompt specifically mentioned happiness as an element
of one’s best possible self. This script prompted many of the children to indicate
what about their best possible self led them to be happy. That is, children often
mentioned being happy as a result of engaging in an activity or occupation or hav-
ing a material possession. It is worthy of note, however, that the prompt mentioned
being happy and interested as a component of best possible selves, but far more
children mentioned happiness than interest when describing their desired selves.
Thus, it is possible that happiness is a particularly salient component of desired
possible selves for elementary school–aged children.
When examining group differences in best possible selves, results indicated
societal concerns/religion and education were more prevalent themes for girls than
for boys. This is consistent with previous research indicating that girls and women
place a higher value on helping others when considering possible occupations than
do boys and men (Post-Kammer, 1987; Weisgram et al., 2010), and girls may give
greater priority to educational possible selves (Yowell, 2000). In addition, the fre-
quency of occupational and societal concerns best possible selves increased with
age, whereas the frequency of hobbies–interests best possible selves decreased
with age. As children move through the elementary school period, they have in-
creased cognitive capability to think about hypothetical events, including future
events, and therefore may be able to think farther into the future (e.g., to an adult
occupation, rather than an anticipated activity that will take place in the near fu-
ture). We did not ask children to explain when their imagined possible selves were
occurring, but future research might consider whether children’s possible selves
are projected increasingly far into the future with age and cognitive development.
Contrary to expectations, the frequency of realistic possible selves responding
declined with age. It is possible since school-aged children have a greater amount
of experience in the world, more inventive future selves can be envisioned. Older
children’s greater cognitive capabilities (particularly in terms of considering hy-
potheticals) may also have led them to have greater capacity to consider a range
of possible outcomes, including unrealistic outcomes. It is also possible the older
children in the study did not take the activity as serious as the younger children due
to peer influence. In addition, although gender differences were not hypothesized
given the lack of research in this area, results showed girls indicated realistic best
possible selves more frequently than boys. Perhaps school-aged boys are more
imaginative with or open to creative future self-concepts than girls. It is also pos-
sible that female participants interpreted the prompt more literally or concretely
than did male participants, resulting in more realistic responses.
Overall, this study indicates that possible selves are relevant to elementary
school–aged children, and that considering positive possible selves may have
benefits for present self-conceptions. Elementary-aged children were not only
able to generate a wide variety of best possible selves, demonstrating they possess
the ability to engage in this task, but by doing so through a drawing intervention
they saw an increase in self-esteem.
Although this study provides an important initial step in the process of exam-
ining positive psychological interventions with elementary school–aged children,
there are several important limitations that must be considered. First, the initial
sample size was fairly small, and attrition due to the length of time required to
complete the study reduced the sample size further. Second, condition assign-
ment was determined by site for a portion of the sample. Although conditions
were comparable in terms of participant demographic characteristics, it is possi-

ble that some variability may have been introduced by characteristics of the sites
rather than the participating individuals. Another limitation was the lack of an
existing empirically validated gratitude measure for children; due to the lack of
such a measure, possible changes in gratitude over time could not be measured.
Such a measure would have been valuable for examining the efficacy of these
interventions, particularly the gratitude intervention.
The present study suggests a number of potential avenues for future research.
First, the use of drawing as a method to implement positive psychological inter-
ventions could be explored in a number of ways. Given previous work with adults,
additional promising constructs could be the focus of the intervention (e.g., hope,
optimism, and strengths). Other creative methods (e.g., role playing, having the
child dictate a letter to an adult) could also be explored. In addition, the duration
of the intervention and frequency of intervention sessions could be manipulated
to explore the optimal intervention time period.
The development and consequences of gratitude in children are also topics
that need to be explored more thoroughly. Future researchers should explore the
extent to which gratitude is beneficial in early and middle childhood, as well as
the best intervention strategies for promoting gratitude in children of this age. The
present study suggests one strategy (drawing), but many other strategies might also
prove to be effective. In addition, future gratitude interventions should explore the
benefits of specific types of gratitude. For example, some interventions with adults
and adolescents have focused on the benefits of gratitude for a specific person,
and gratitude interventions that include a social element, such as the act of giving
a gratitude letter to its recipient, have been successful in the past (Froh, Kashdan,
et al., 2009). The incorporation of this social component along with drawing may
increase the effectiveness of gratitude interventions, a possibility that should be
explored by future researchers. For example, children could draw a picture of a
person for whom they are thankful and give the picture to that individual. Adding
such components might increase the potential benefits of gratitude interventions
for children.
Finally, future research could also further explore the important aspects of
best possible selves interventions for children, including the role of realistic versus
unrealistic possible selves as well as the type of possible selves generated (i.e.,
relationships, occupations) and the possible influence of developing an action

plan or formulating specific strategies for achieving the desired self on children’s
outcomes. Research with adults and adolescents (e.g., Gonzales et al., 2001; Oy-
serman et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2004) has produced conflicting conclusions
as to whether realistic possible selves produce better outcomes than unrealistic
or vague possible selves. The present study indicates that whether the possible
selves produced were realistic did not impact the effect of producing such pos-
sible selves on children’s self-esteem, but realism might be important for other
outcomes (e.g., behavioral change). Future researchers should explore the content
and impact of possible selves produced by elementary school–aged children more

broadly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Eden Owen, Benjamin Rutt, Emily Sloan,
Kelly English, Kathleen Mapes, Emily Overland, and Candace Darden for their
assistance with data collection. Special thanks to Trailwood Elementary, Sunflower
Elementary, Merriam Elementary, Gardner Elementary, and Rainbow School Early
Childhood Education Center for their participation in this study.
AUTHOR NOTES
Rhea L. Owens is an assistant professor in the Psychology Department

at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. She recently earned her Ph.D.
in counseling psychology at the University of Kansas and completed a child
clinical internship at Children’s Mercy Hospitals & Clinics. Her research interests
include positive psychology, strength identification and development, positive
child development, and clinical applications of positive psychology. Meagan
M. Patterson is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and
Research in Education at the University of Kansas. Her research interests include
the development of intergroup attitudes and group identity in children and the
influence of social group membership on children’s educational interests and
aspirations.
REFERENCES
Bamford, C., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2012). Looking on the bright side: Children’s knowledge
about the benefits of positive versus negative thinking. Child Development, 83, 667–682.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01706.x
Bono, G., & Froh, J. (2009). Gratitude in school: Benefits to students and schools. In R.
Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in
schools (pp. 77–88). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). NurtureShock: New thinking about children. New
York, NY: Twelve.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An

experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
Emmons, R. A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Why gratitude enhances well-being. What we know,
what we need to know. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, T. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger
(Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What
good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emo-
tions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.84.2.365
Freilich, R., & Shechtman, Z. (2010). The contribution of art therapy to the social, emo-
tional, and academic adjustment of children with learning disabilities. The Arts in Psy-
chotherapy, 37, 97–105. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2010.02.003
Froh, J. J., Bomo, G., & Emmons, R. (2010). Being grateful is beyond good manners:
Gratitude and motivation to contribute to society among early adolescents. Motivation
and Emotion, 34, 144–157. doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9163-z
Froh, J. J., Kashdan, T. B., Ozimkowski, K. M., & Miller, N. (2009). Who ben-
efits the most from a gratitude intervention in children and adolescents? Exam-
ining positive affect as a moderator. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 408–422.
doi:10.1080/17439760902992464
Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adoles-
cents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School
Psychology, 46, 213–233. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.005
Froh, J. J., Yurkewicz, C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Gratitude and subjective well-being in
early adolescence: Examining gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 633–650.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.006
Gibbons, K. (2010). Circle justice: A creative arts approach to conflict resolution in the
classroom. Art Therapy, 27, 84–89. doi:10.1080/07421656.2010.10129716
Gonzales, M. H., Burgess, D. J., & Mobilio, L. J. (2001). The allure of bad plans: Implica-
tions of plan quality for progress toward possible selves and postplanning energization.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 87–108. doi:10.1207/153248301300148854
Gordon, A. K., Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Holub, S. C., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). What
are children thankful for? An archival analysis of gratitude before and after the at-
tacks of September 11. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 541–553.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.004
Graham, S. (1988). Children’s developing understanding of the motivational role of
affect: An attributional analysis. Cognitive Development, 3, 71–88. doi:10.1016/
0885-2014(88)90031-7
Graham, S., & Barker, G. P. (1990). The down side of help: An attributional-developmental
analysis of helping behavior as a low-ability cue. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 7–14. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.7
Greif, E. B., & Gleason, J. B. (1980). Hi, thanks, and goodbye: More routine information.
Language in Society, 9, 159–166. doi:10.1017/S0047404500008034
Hallinan, P. K. (2001). I’m thankful each day. Nashville, TN: Candy Cane Press.
Hart, D., Fegley, S., & Brengelman, D. (1993). Perceptions of past, present, and future
selves among children and adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
11, 265–282. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1993.tb00602.x
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53,
87–97. doi:10.2307/1129640
Harter, S. (1990). Developmental differences in the nature of self-representations: Implica-

tions for the understanding, assessment, and treatment of maladaptive behavior. Cognitive
Therapy and Research. Special Issues: Selfhood Processes and Emotional Disorders, 14,
113–142. doi:10.1007/BF01176205
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Hock, M., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (2006). Enhancing student motivation through the
pursuit of possible selves. In C. Dunkel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible selves: Theory,
research, and applications. New York, NY: Nova Science.
King, L. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798–807. doi:10.1177/0146167201277003

Kirschman, K. J. B., Johnson, R. J., Bender, J. A., & Roberts, M. C. (2009). Positive
psychology for children and adolescents: Development, prevention, and promotion. In S.
J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 133–148).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Knox, M., Funk, J., Elliott, R., & Bush, E. (1998). Adolescents’ possible selves and their
relationship to global self-esteem. Sex Roles, 39, 61–80. doi:10.1023/A:1018877716225
Latvala, C. (2007). The grateful child. American Baby. November. Retrieved from http:
//www.parents.com/toddlers-preschoolers/development/intellectual/grateful/
Laurent, J., Salvatore, J. C., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., . . . Gath-
right, T. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development
and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326–338. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.11.3.326
Leondari, A., Syngollitou, E., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1998). Academic achievement, mo-
tivation and possible selves. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 219–222. doi:10.1080/
0305569980240202
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The
architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131.
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
Maddux, J. E. (2002). Stopping the “madness”: Positive psychology and deconstructing the
illness ideology and the DSM. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook
of positive psychology (pp. 61–69). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Magyar-Moe, J. L. (2009). Therapist’s guide to positive psychological interventions. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
McAdams, D. P., & Bauer, J. J. (2004). Gratitude in modern life: Its manifestations and
development. In R. A. Emmons & M. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude
(pp. 81–99). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A
conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
112–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112
McDermott, D., & Hastings, S. (2000). Children: Raising future hopes. In C. R. Snyder
(Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 185–199). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
McDermott, D., Hastings, S., Gariglietti, K. P., Gingerich, K., Callahan, B., & Diamond,
K. (1996, April). Fostering hope in the classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Kansas Counseling Association, Salina, KS.
Osyerman, D., Brickman, D., & Rhodes, M. (2007). School success, possible selves,
and parent school involvement. Family Relations, 56, 479–489. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2007.00475.x
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How
and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91, 188–204. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as
roadmaps. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 130–149. doi:10.1016/S0092-
6566(03)00057-6
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1990). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 59, 112–125. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.1.112
Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A possible selves intervention to enhance
school involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 313–326. doi:10.1006/jado.2002.0474
Pedrotti, J. T. (2000). Making hope happen: A program for fostering strengths in adoles-
cents. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas.
Perry, J. C., & Vance, K. S. (2010). Possible selves among urban youths of color: An
exploration of peer beliefs and gender differences. The Career Development Quarterly,
58, 257–269. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00191.x
Post-Kammer, P. (1987). Intrinsic and extrinsic work values and career maturity of 9th-
and 11th-grade boys and girls. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 420–423.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1987.tb00746.x
Rosewood, O. (2009). Gratitude Soup. Santa Monica, CA: CreateSpace.
Russell, J. A., & Paris, F. A. (1994). Do children acquire concepts for complex
emotions abruptly? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 349–
365.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology
progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
Seligson, J., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2003). An investigation of a brief life satis-
faction scale with elementary school children. Social Indicators Research, 73, 355–374.
doi:10.1007/s11205-004-2011-3
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion:
The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 1, 73–82. doi:10.1080/17439760500510676
Smith, E. J. (2006). The strength-based counseling model. The Counseling Psychologist,
34, 13–79. doi:10.1177/0011000005277018
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S.
T., . . . Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an
individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 570–585.
Taylor, S. E., Neter, E., & Wayment, H. A. (1995). Self-evaluation processes. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1278–1287. doi:10.1177/01461672952112005
Watkins, P. C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness:
Development of a measure of gratitude and relationships with subjective well-being.
Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 431–452. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431
Weisgram, E. S., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. W. (2010). Gender, values, and occupational
interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81, 778–796.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01433.x
Wright, R., John, L., Ellenbogen, S., Offord, D. R., Duku, E. K., & Rowe, W. (2006). Effect
of a structured arts program on the psychosocial functioning of youth from low-income
communities: Findings from a Canadian longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adoles-

cence, 26, 186–205. doi:10.1177/0272431605285717
Yowell, C. (2000). Possible selves and future orientation: Exploring hopes and
fears in Latino boys and girls. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 245–280.
doi:10.1177/0272431600020003001
Original manuscript received December 20, 2011

Final version accepted May 16, 2012

Owens 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Owens 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]

On: 06 March 2015, At: 18:48

The Journal of Genetic

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2012.697496

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Positive Psychological Interventions

ABSTRACT. Many studies have found benefits of positive psychological interventions,

Historically, much psychological research (particularly in the clinical psychol-

Address correspondence to Rhea L. Owens, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, Psy-

emerging field, positive psychologists have developed interventions aimed at

difficulties (Kirschman et al., 2009).

Gratitude can be defined as an emotion that arises from experiencing a positive

Developmental research on gratitude. Recent research indicates that children as

of theory of mind understanding (McAdams & Bauer, 2004). Extant research

prompt (Gordon, Musher-Eizenman, Holum, & Dalrymple, 2004).

Gratitude interventions. Gratitude interventions typically take one of two forms.

Developmental research on possible selves. In their initial theoretical description

Group differences in possible selves. As with gratitude, research indicates there

Knox et al. (1998) examined gender differences in relations between spe-

The Present Study

possible selves with an emphasis on helping others) based on previous research

Gratitude condition. In the gratitude condition (n = 22), children were asked to

the following instruction: “Draw a picture of something you did today.”

Content Analyses of Pictures

Gratitude condition. For participants in the gratitude condition, a coding scheme

Gratitude Picture Content

TABLE 1. Gratitude Themes

Activities 29.5% 72.7% 0.89

activities day and I got first place on

TABLE 2. Best Possible Selves Themes

Self-oriented 43.5% 87.0% 0.95 I drew me being a good sport and

descriptors in the net. My dad is watching me

Best Possible Selves Picture Content

TABLE 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Outcome Measures by Interven-

Self-esteem. Results indicated a significant time x condition interaction, F(2, 55) =

chological interventions, such as gratitude promotion, for preschool and elemen-

than more general experiences or ongoing relationships. Indeed, expressions of

personal attributes such as confidence, intelligence, or happiness), followed by

were comparable in terms of participant demographic characteristics, it is possi-

relationships, occupations) and the possible influence of developing an action

and impact of possible selves produced by elementary school–aged children more

Rhea L. Owens is an assistant professor in the Psychology Department

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376. doi:10.1037/0022-

Harter, S. (1990). Developmental differences in the nature of self-representations: Implica-

Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798–807. doi:10.1177/0146167201277003

communities: Findings from a Canadian longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adoles-

Original manuscript received December 20, 2011

You might also like