Journal of Personnel Psychology

Paying Gratitude Forward at Work: How Work-Specific Gratitude Can Affect

Burnout Through Interpersonal Helping Behavior
Amber Kersten, Marianne van Woerkom, Dorien T. A. M. Kooij, and Robin Bauwens
Online First Publication, November 22, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000296

CITATION
Kersten, A., van Woerkom, M., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & Bauwens, R. (2021, November 22). Paying Gratitude Forward at Work:
How Work-Specific Gratitude Can Affect Burnout Through Interpersonal Helping Behavior. Journal of Personnel Psychology.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000296
 Original Article

Paying Gratitude Forward at Work

How Work-Specific Gratitude Can Affect Burnout Through
Interpersonal Helping Behavior
Amber Kersten1, Marianne van Woerkom1,2, Dorien T. A. M. Kooij1, and Robin Bauwens1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1
Department of Human Resource Studies, School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2
Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract. Since workers are increasingly suffering from burnout, there is a need for insights into how burnout can be decreased to improve
subjective well-being. The broaden-and-build theory proposes that gratitude increases well-being through an upward spiral. Few studies have
examined whether gratitude decreases burnout and what mediating behaviors explain this relationship. Using an international sample of
employees (N = 353), this study examines whether work-specific gratitude negatively relates to exhaustion and disengagement. Additionally,
since gratitude stimulates helping through upstream reciprocity, this study investigates whether interpersonal helping behavior (IHB) mediates
these relationships. Our study showed a negative effect of work-specific gratitude on disengagement and exhaustion and a negative rela-
tionship between work-specific gratitude and disengagement, mediated by IHB, suggesting that gratitude stimulates IHB, thereby alleviating
disengagement.

Keywords: gratitude, burnout, interpersonal helping behavior, employees, positive psychology

Over the past 30 years, an increasing incidence of burnout
has been reported across occupational groups (Aguilera
et al., 2021). Burnout occurs when stressors persist over
time and has been found to consist of two main dimen-
sions: disengagement and exhaustion. Disengagement
refers to “distancing oneself from one’s work in general,
work object, and work content” (Demerouti et al., 2010; p.
211) and is seen as a continuum ranging from disen-
gagement to dedication. Exhaustion is defined as “a
consequence of intensive physical, affective and cognitive
strain” (Demerouti et al., 2010; p. 210) and ranges from
exhaustion to vigor. Whereas Maslach et al. (1986) initially
distinguished efficacy as a third dimension of burnout,
more recent studies pointed out that this dimension is less
central compared to the two other dimensions (Demerouti
et al., 2010; Lee & Ashforth, 1996).
Burnout has been found to have negative consequences
for both individual workers and organizations, such as
resource depletion, absenteeism, decreased performance,
or higher turnover (AbuAlRub, 2004; Maslach et al.,
1996). Therefore, a growing body of literature has fo-
cused on the factors that may decrease burnout (Danna &
Griffin, 1999). To this end, the broaden-and-build theory
of positive emotions by Fredrickson (2001) has been used
to study the relationship between positive emotions and
burnout. This theory proposes that positive emotions ac-
tivate a spiral of optimal functioning by triggering a
broadened scope of attention, which generates a frame-
work in which resources and skills are built that help to
cope with negative experiences (Fredrickson, 2001). In
line with this, negative relationships between positive
emotions and symptoms of burnout have been demon-
strated (e.g., Basinska et al., 2014).
One particularly important positive emotion in this re-
gard is gratitude, which is seen as a social emotion that
explains unique pathways to reduced stress experiences
(Lambert et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2010). Emmons and
Mishra (2011) emphasize the social nature of gratitude by
defining it as an experience of “acknowledgement that we
have received something of value from others” (p. 248).
Gratitude may arise in the context of different life domains
such as family or work (Allemand & Hill, 2016). Con-
textualized gratitude is thought to provide additional in-
sights into context-specific outcomes (Fredrickson, 2000).
Work-specific gratitude plays “a unique role in shaping
workplace attitudes” (Lanham et al., 2012; p. 349) since
the experience of gratitude is often followed by interper-
sonal responses within that context (Wood et al., 2008).
Based on the spiral of optimal functioning, several studies
have shown that (work-specific) gratitude is negatively as-
sociated with both the exhaustion and disengagement di-
mensions of burnout (e.g., Chan, 2011; Lanham et al., 2012).
However, the potential interpersonal mechanisms that
mediate the relationship between gratitude and burnout

© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000296
 2 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
remain unclear (Tian et al., 2015). Previous research has
explored the function of gratitude to nurture social bonds
through the moral reinforcement of helping behaviors
(Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006). Nowak and Roch (2007) add
that gratitude may spark “upstream reciprocity,” which
stimulates helping behavior to the community, instead of
just the benefactor. This aligns with the find-remind-and-
bind theory of Algoe (2012), which proposes that gratitude
stimulates finding new relationships, reminds an indi-
vidual of existing relationships, or binds individuals closer.
Bartlett and DeSteno (2006) add that helping behavior
stimulated by emotions, for example, gratitude, differs
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
from prosocial responding without this emotional moti-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
vator. For instance, gratitude can stimulate helping be-
haviors even if such behaviors would be hedonically
negative. Therefore, we focus on interpersonal helping
behavior (IHB) as a mediating mechanism in the rela-
tionship between work-specific gratitude on the one hand
and disengagement and emotional exhaustion on the other
hand.
IHB can be defined as the genuine concern for col-
leagues and the provision of voluntary help (Choi, 2006)
and is seen as the most distinctive aspect of organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB; Organ et al., 2006; Van Scotter
& Motowidlo, 1996) and contextual performance (Podsakoff
et al., 2000). IHB has been found to alleviate negative
states by increasing relatedness to others and to stimulate
the maintenance of current resources that were experi-
enced in the grateful state but also to extend resources and
decrease exhaustion and disengagement (Hobfoll, 2001;
Jang et al., 2020). Next to this, IHB helps to build and bind
valuable connections to others (Algoe, 2012; Lyubomirsky
et al., 2005), thereby allowing employees to build stronger
relationships that may offer them supportive resources and
may satisfy the need for relatedness (Bartel, 2001; Grant &
Sonnentag, 2010). Hence, we expect that higher levels of
IHB, which helps to strengthen and bind relationships,
may decrease disengagement and offer new resources that
may improve exhaustion (Demerouti et al., 2003; Maslach
& Jackson, 1981).
This study adds to the literature in several ways. First,
previous studies have mainly focused on dispositional
gratitude in relation to burnout (e.g., Chan, 2011; Lee et al.,
2018). However, Fredrickson (2000) suggests that
studying domain-specific gratitude may affect behavior and
that, particularly within organizations, contextualized
gratitude may relate strongly to work-related behaviors.
Allemand and Hill (2016) distinguish between interper-
sonal (e.g., family domain) and instrumental (e.g., work
domain) domains of gratitude and show that this com-
plexity underlies the effects of gratitude in adulthood,
which makes the consideration of domain-specific grati-
tude relevant. Still, the effects of domain-specific gratitude,
Journal of Personnel Psychology
such as work-specific gratitude, have hardly been inves-
tigated. An exception is the study by Lanham et al. (2012),
indicating that work-specific gratitude was negatively re-
lated to both dimensions of burnout, whereas dispositional
gratitude was not. Therefore, this study considers the
effects of work-specific gratitude on IHB and burnout.
Additionally, since burnout numbers have been rising in
various jobs (Aguilera et al., 2021), insights for wider
occupational groups are needed. Therefore, this study
investigates the effects of work-specific gratitude on both
the disengagement and exhaustion dimensions of burnout
within a general working population. Finally, to shed light
on the explaining mechanisms, we explore the mediating
role of IHB in the relationship between gratitude and both
dimensions of burnout.
Gratitude and Burnout
From an evolutionary perspective, it has been evident that
negative emotions play a role in survival. The survival of the
fittest theorem states that negative emotions narrow ac-
tion tendencies, thereby enhancing our chances of survival
(Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Whereas these effects of
negative emotions have been widely researched (Jans-
Beken, 2018), positive emotions have been mostly ne-
glected in the history of psychological research (Emmons
& McCullough, 2004). Fredrickson (2001) has applied the
evolutionary view on how positive emotions facilitate well-
being in the broaden-and-build theory. According to this
theory, positive emotions broaden action tendencies by
encouraging exploration. This allows individuals to ex-
plore new insights and strengthen themselves by building
intellectual, socioemotional, and psychological resources.
Hence, positive emotions do not only serve as positive end
states but serve a role in psychological growth and well-
being (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Gratitude is viewed as
one of the key emotions which triggers this spiral of op-
timal functioning (Lambert et al., 2012).
The broaden-and-build theory can be used to explain
the relationship between gratitude and both burnout di-
mensions. According to Fredrickson (2001), gratitude can
broaden action tendencies and bring about new behaviors,
leading to increased resources. These durable resources
can be utilized to manage the demands that workers face
and to regain the resources that have been depleted by a
high amount of job demands, as is the case for exhaustion
(Gordon et al., 2004; Lanham et al., 2012). In addition,
gratitude may help an individual to create stronger social
bonds through the exploration of new prosocial and in-
terpersonal behaviors (O’Connell et al., 2018). This focus
on interpersonal bonds may help to foster the dedication to
(others in) the work environment and may thereby decrease
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
disengagement from the work context (Demerouti et al.,
2003). In conclusion, gratitude is likely to provide the
necessary emotional, cognitive, and social resources that
diminish both exhaustion and disengagement (Guan &
Jepsen, 2020). Fredrickson (2000) suggests that work-
specific gratitude affects work-related behaviors. There-
fore, work-specific gratitude may differ from dispositional
gratitude and is expected to have distinct effects on em-
ployee outcomes, such as burnout.
Previous cross-sectional studies have shown these types
of associations between gratitude and both dimensions of
burnout. Chen and Chang (2014) found that gratitude is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
negatively associated with athlete’s exhaustion (see also
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Gabana et al., 2017). Lee et al. (2018) demonstrated that
gratitude was negatively associated with stress, exhaus-
tion, and cynicism for firefighters. Chan (2011) found that
a gratitude intervention reduced exhaustion and deper-
sonalization (or disengagement) for teachers. Finally,
based on a sample of high-strain mental health profes-
sionals, Lanham et al. (2012) found that gratitude at work
is negatively associated with exhaustion and disengage-
ment. Based on these empirical findings and the broaden-
and-build theory, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: There will be a negative association
between work-specific gratitude and disengagement.
Hypothesis 1b: There will be a negative association
between work-specific gratitude and exhaustion.
The Mediating Role of Interpersonal Helping
Behavior
Although several studies have shown associations between
gratitude on the one hand and disengagement and ex-
haustion on the other hand, mediating mechanisms have not
been explored extensively. Since gratitude is a moral rein-
forcer to engage in reciprocation (Algoe, 2012; Grant & Gino,
2010), interpersonal behaviors can be seen as a result of
gratitude (Fredrickson, 2001). This logic can be based on the
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson,
2000, 2001; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002), which states that
when a person experiences gratitude, the person develops a
broadened mindset in which new skills and behaviors are
explored that help to sustain positive moods. Nowak and
Roch (2007) add that gratitude may spark upstream
reciprocity, which stimulates helping behavior to the
community, instead of just the benefactor. The concept of
upstream reciprocity aligns with the find-remind-and-bind
theory by Algoe (2012), which highlights the importance of
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
3
gratitude in interpersonal bonds. This theory explains that
gratitude may stimulate finding new qualities in others,
reminding one of the existing qualities in relationships, or
exploring new ways to bind with others. This is due to the
fact that gratitude triggers individuals to update their view
of the benefactor and others and determine appropriate
situational responses. In this sense, gratitude stimulates
the individual to explore behaviors that allow the indi-
vidual to give back to the environment and build sup-
portive connections with others (Algoe, 2012; Fredrickson,
2000). This is in line with Froh et al. (2010), Grant and
Gino (2010) and Tsang (2006), who showed that grateful
individuals were more likely to engage in IHB. Therefore,
we expect work-specific gratitude to be positively related
to IHB of employees.
In turn, IHB has been found to increase positive eval-
uations of relationships and decrease ill-being of the in-
dividual (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Thoits & Hewitt,
2001). Demonstrating prosocial behaviors increases the
quality of social relationships and stimulates one to find
new resources in existing relationships (Algoe, 2012;
O’Connell et al., 2018), thereby helping to regain depleted
resources. Although IHB can be seen as an effortful ac-
tivity that may also take energy, it has been found to in-
crease well-being and vitality and decrease stress (Inagaki
et al., 2016; Titova & Sheldon, 2021). Jang et al. (2020)
argue that prosocial behavior (as a part of OCB) is dem-
onstrated as a means of protecting and gaining resources.
In line with conservation of resources theory, which states
that individuals strive to retain and gain resources, IHB
could be seen as a means to maintain the current resources
that were experienced in the grateful state but also to
extend resources and decrease exhaustion and disen-
gagement (Hobfoll, 2001; Jang et al., 2020).
In conclusion, we propose that work-specific gratitude is
positively related to IHB based on upstream reciprocity and
the increased tendency to strengthen interpersonal bonds.
In turn, IHB will sustain high-quality relationships, which
provide new (interpersonal) resources that may help to
rekindle one’s dedication to the work context and content
and regain resources that were depleted due to high job
demands, resulting in lower levels of disengagement and
exhaustion. We propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Interpersonal helping behavior medi-
ates the relationship between work-specific gratitude
and disengagement.
Hypothesis 2b: Interpersonal helping behavior medi-
ates the relationship between work-specific gratitude
and exhaustion.
Journal of Personnel Psychology
 4 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
Methods
Design and Procedure
We conducted a study with three measurements during
5 weeks. Participants were employees of various sectors
and countries and were contacted using convenience
sampling, aimed at the international network of the re-
searchers. Recruitment of participants was primarily
aimed at, but not limited to, the Dutch labor market
context. This is reflected in our sample, which consists
primarily of Dutch employees (47.3%) but represents other
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
countries such as Germany (12.2%), Finland (9.3%), Bel-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gium (2.8%), and Malta (2.8%) as well. Since there was a
possibility for all nationalities to participate digitally in this
study, all participants could select a Dutch or English
version of the questionnaire. All scales were translated
from English into Dutch using the back-translation
method (Brislin, 1970). Inclusion criteria were the par-
ticipant had a minimum age of 18 and was employed for at
least 0.5 full-time equivalent (20 hours). In addition, par-
ticipants could not have any planned leave during the study
and should have daily interaction with colleagues or clients.
Participants received a consent form before participating,
which again emphasized these inclusion criteria. The
baseline questionnaire (T0) was distributed by email on Day
1, the second measurement on Day 15 (T1), and the third
measurement on Day 29 (T2). This three-measurement
design allows us to address the call for research on
longer-term outcomes of gratitude in terms of behavior and
well-being (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2010; Grant & Gino, 2010;
Tsang, 2006). Time intervals were similar to the studies on
the effects of gratitude interventions on individual well-
being (Froh et al., 2008; O’ Leary & Dockray, 2015) and
relational resources (Kerr et al., 2015).
The three data points were coupled using an untraceable
identifier code. This five-digit identifier code was for-
mulated by the respondent, consisting of the first letter of
their mother’s first name and father’s first name, the first
letter of their place of birth, and the two digits of their
month of birth. The data were treated anonymously and
confidentially. If participants completed all questionnaires,
they could win a €20 gift card.
Sample
Overall, 353 people participated in the questionnaire, re-
sulting in data for 769 time points. Two hundred sixty-
eight participants completed the first questionnaire (T0),
266 participants completed the second questionnaire
( 0.75% compared to the first questionnaire; T1), and 217
participants completed the third questionnaire ( 18.42%
Journal of Personnel Psychology
compared to the second questionnaire; T2). These attrition
rates (10–30%) are within the acceptable ranges (Allan,
2018).
The average respondent was female (52.7%), 33.56 years
old (SD = 11.63), and employed in the Netherlands (n = 167,
47.3%), Germany (n = 43, 12.2%), or Finland (n = 33, 9.3%).
The majority of respondents worked in recruitment and
human resources (n = 45, 12.7%) or accountancy, finance,
and banking (n = 44, 12.5%). Most respondents had a
university master’s degree (36.0%) or a university bache-
lor’s degree (17.0%).
Measures
Gratitude was measured using five items of the Gratitude
Questionnaire-Six Item Form (GQ-6; McCullough et al.,
2002). The items were adapted to the work context by
adding the specification at work to each item. A sample
item is “I have so much at work to be thankful for.” One
item (“As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate
the people, events, and situations that have been part of
my life history”) of the GQ-6 was not included since it
could not be adapted to the work context. Answers were
indicated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Cronbach’s α for the first
measurement was .85, for the second measurement .87,
and for the third measurement .87.
Interpersonal helping behavior was measured with four
items from the scale of IHB by Moorman and Blakely
(1995), as used by Choi (2006). A sample item is “I go out
of my way to help co-workers with work-related problems.”
Answers were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) showed that all items loaded on one
factor (T0: χ2 (2) = 4.5, comparative fit index [CFI] = .98,
Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .92, RMSEA = .06). Cronbach’s
α was .68 for the first time point, .63 for the second time
point, and .67 for the third time point. While this is < .70, a
value of ≥ .65 is considered reasonable by authors like
Taber (2018, p. 1278). Furthermore, IHB had a satisfactory
composite reliability (ω = .67; Bentler, 2009).
Emotional exhaustion and disengagement were measured
with two subscales of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
(Demerouti et al., 2003), each consisting of eight items. A
sample item for emotional exhaustion is “During my work,
I often feel emotionally drained.” A sample item for dis-
engagement is “Lately, I tend to think less at work and do
my job almost mechanically.” Answers were indicated on a
4-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (4). Cronbach’s α for emotional exhaustion
was.78 at T0, .82 at T1, and .86 at T2. Cronbach’s α for
disengagement was .85 at all three time points.
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work 5

Control Variables Results

Since older workers are found to show higher levels of
gratitude because the awareness of mortality directs at-
tention to gratitude (Hill et al., 2013), we included age as a
control variable. Since highly educated individuals show
higher gratitude (Jans-Beken, 2018) due to improved
cognitive abilities and awareness, we controlled for level of
education. Furthermore, research suggests between-
country differences in gratitude due to cultural varia-
tions, such as individualism or collectivism (Mendonça
et al., 2018). ANOVA showed that employees from Ger-
many show significantly lower gratitude than the other
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
Analysis
An overview of correlations, means, and SDs is presented
in Table 1. Gratitude was found to correlate positively with
IHB (r = .37, p < .001) and negatively with emotional
exhaustion and disengagement (r = .49, p < .001;
r = .63, p < .001, respectively). In turn, IHB was also
found to correlate negatively with emotional exhaustion
and disengagement (r = .23, p < .001; r = .31, p < .001,

countries in our data set (F(1,284) = 6.0, p = .02). respectively).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Therefore, we also controlled for country of work (Ger-

many = 1, other = 0).
Measurement Model

Strategy of Analysis Prior to testing the hypotheses, the measurement model

Since our data classify as panel data with “multiple re-
sponses from the same entity on the independent and
dependent variable” (Bliese et al., 2020, p. 79), we used
panel regression with plm in R to test the hypotheses
(Croissant & Millo, 2008). This approach follows earlier
psychological research (e.g., Pieper, 2015; Ring et al.,
2018) with the major advantage that it provides more
efficient estimates of within-level (Level 1: time points)
and between-level (Level 2: individual) relationships in
unbalanced data sets (i.e., incomplete numbers of time
points per individual) while also better accounting for
endogeneity compared to other techniques dealing with
clustered data (Baltagi, 2008; Bliese et al., 2020). In ad-
dition, indirect relationships were tested in 10,000 Monte
Carlo simulations with 95% quasi-Bayesian CIs. Similar to
bootstrapping, this approach is more suitable for clustered
data sets (Hayes, 2018).
was tested using multilevel CFA with lavaan and lav-
aan.survey in R (Oberski, 2014; Rosseel, 2012), which takes
into account the nested structure of time points within
individuals. An overview of the models and fit indices is
displayed in Table 2. We started from a four-factor model
in which gratitude, IHB, emotional exhaustion, and dis-
engagement were all represented by their own factor,
displaying good fit to the data (χ2(265) = 753.96, CFI = .90,
TLI = .06, RMSEA = .05). Both a three-factor model with
gratitude and IHB loading on separate factors and the
burnout dimensions loading on one common factor
(Δχ2(Δdf) = 58.86 (5), p < .001) and a two-factor model with
gratitude and IHB loading on one common factor and the
burnout dimensions represented by one factor (Δχ2(Δdf) =
442.26 (9), p < .001) provided a significantly worse fit
compared to the hypothesized model. In addition, a
one-factor model also fitted the data significantly
worse (Δχ2(Δdf) = 837.09 (10), p < .001). Therefore, the

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Age 33.56 11.81
2 Education 5.19 1.86 .20***
3 Country (1 = Germany) 0.15 0.36 .18*** .15***
4 Time 0.91 0.80 .02 .03 .00
5 Gratitude 5.11 1.08 .07 .09* .13*** .01
6 IHB 4.04 0.51 .03 .01 .20*** .08* .37***
7 Emotional exhaustion 2.19 0.46 .14*** .13** .04 .03 .49*** .23***
8 Disengagement 2.22 0.52 .16*** .11** .10** .02 .63*** .31*** .62***
Note. Between-level N = 353 and within-level N = 769. Correlations are for the within-level and do not account for the clustered nature of the data. Education
(1 = primary education, 2 = secondary education, 3 = primary vocational education, 4 = secondary vocational education, 5 = higher vocational education,
6 = bachelor’s degree, 7 = master’s degree, and 8 = doctoral degree). IHB = interpersonal helping behavior. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology

 6 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis

χ2 df AIC CFI RMSEA SRMR Δχ2 Δdf p
One-factor model (CMB) 1,591.05 275 41,204.52 .71 .10 .08 837.09 10 ***
Two-factor model (gratitude and IHB as one) 1,196.22 274 40,513.11 .80 .08 .07 442.26 9 ***
Three-factor model (burnout as one) 812.82 270 39,892.06 .89 .05 .05 58.86 5 ***
Four-factor model (hypothesized) 753.96 265 39,807.46 .90 .06 .05 0 0 —
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; CFI = comparative fit index; CMB = common method bias; IHB = interpersonal helping behavior; SRMR = standardized
root mean square residual. *p < .050, **p < .010, ***p < .0010.

four-factor model is commendable as a measurement
model. In addition, a multigroup CFA was conducted to
detect whether this four-factor model holds across the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
RE models with between-person relationships and random
time intercepts.
Looking at the FE models, we see that within-person

three measurement points (T0, T1, and T2). The results
are provided in Table 3. Both the Cheung and Rensvold
(2002) criterion (ΔCFI < .01) and the Δχ2 criterion (Satorra
& Bentler, 2001) indicate that scalar invariance can be
established (see Table 3). Hence, factor structure, load-
ings, and intercepts are the same across measurement
points, and latent means can be meaningfully compared
across measurements.
Hypothesis Testing
Table 4 presents the panel regression results. After default
pairwise deletion by our analysis software, 226 participants
and 543 time points remain. We adopted fixed-effects (FE)
models to assess variation in the relationships between
gratitude, IHB, disengagement, and exhaustion over time.
While significant Hausman specification tests (1978) in-
dicated unobserved heterogeneity in favor of the FE
models (see Table 4) since these models do not account for
time-invariant variables, we also calculated random ef-
fects (RE) model with maximum likelihood estimation to
estimate variation in the relationships between gratitude,
IHB, disengagement, and exhaustion between individuals.
Significant Breusch–Pagan tests (1979) indicated that
sufficient heteroscedasticity was present to continue this
approach. Models 1–3 present the FE models with the
within-person relationships, while Models 4–6 show the
influences were largely limited. Most relationships re-
mained stable over the period of 5 weeks, with the ex-
ception of gratitude and disengagement (β = .08,
p = .002), while participants also displayed less IHB over
time (β = .04, p = .006). Turning toward the RE models,
the direct relationships between gratitude on the one hand
and disengagement (β = .18, p < .001) and emotional
exhaustion (β = .11, p < .001) on the other hand were
significant. Therefore, our hypotheses that work-specific
gratitude would be directly and negatively related to
disengagement (Hypothesis 1a) and emotional exhaustion
(Hypothesis 1b) were supported. Furthermore, we pre-
dicted that the negative relationship between work-
specific gratitude and disengagement (Hypothesis 2a)
and emotional exhaustion (Hypothesis 2b) would be me-
diated by IHB. Accordingly, the result showed a significant
relationship between gratitude and IHB (β = .14,
p < .001), which indicated a significant relationship be-
tween the independent and mediating variable. In line
with Hypothesis 2a, IHB negatively predicted disengage-
ment (β = .07, p = .040), indicating a significant rela-
tionship between the mediating and dependent variable.
Monte Carlo simulations confirmed the mediating indirect
effect to be significant (β = –.010, CI [–.019, .008],
p = .007), supporting Hypothesis 2a. Contrary to Hy-
pothesis 2b, there was no significant relationship between
IHB and emotional exhaustion (β = .03, p = .265). Hence,
Hypothesis 2b is not confirmed.

Table 3. Model invariance

χ2 df CFI scaled Δχ2 ΔCFI scaled
Configurational invariance (equal factor structure) 1,677.4 795 .88
Metric invariance (equal loadings) 1,727.1 837 .88 49.65n.s. .001
Scalar invariance (equal factor loadings and intercepts) 1,772.8 871 .88 47.70n.s. .001
Strict invariance (equal loadings, intercepts, and residual variances) 1,918.1 921 .87 143.34*** .009
Full invariance (equal loadings, intercepts, residual variances, and 1,933.2 937 .87 15.40n.s. .001
means)
Note. CFI = comparative fit index. *p < .050, **p < .010, ***p < .0010., n.s. = not significant.

Journal of Personnel Psychology © 2021 Hogrefe Publishing

 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work 7

Table 4. Fixed and RE panel models of gratitude over time (T0, T1, and T2) regressed on IHB, disengagement, and emotional exhaustion
FE models RE models
(3) Emotional (6) Emotional
(1) IHB (2) Disengagement exhaustion (4) IHB (5) Disengagement exhaustion
Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates
Predictors (SE) p (SE) p (SE) p (SE) p (SE) p (SE) p
Gratitude 0.07 (0.04) .062 0.08 .002** 0.03 .129 0.14 (0.02) <.001*** 0.18 <.001*** 0.11 <.001***
(0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)
IHB 0.03 .463 0.01 .808 0.07 .040* 0.03 .265
(0.01) (0.00) (0.03) (0.03)
Age 0.00 (0.00) .998 0.01 .012* 0.01 .003**
(0.00) (0.00)
Country 0.14 .124 0.04 .626 0.08 .288
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(1 = Germany) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Education 0.01 (0.02) .438 0.03 (0.01) .079 0.03 (0.01) .055
Time 0.04 .006** 0.02 .056 0.01 .157 0.05 .004** 0.02 (0.01) .102 0.02 .118
(0.016) (0.024) (0.021) (0.02) (0.01)

Adjusted R2 .04 .05 .01 .42 .32 .28

Hausman χ2 9.46 .009** 35.55 <.001*** 41.77 <.001***
Breusch Pagan 11.72 <.001*** 16.03 <.001*** 14.71 <.001***
λ2
Nweekly observations 543 543 543 543 543 543
Nindividuals 226 226 226 226 226 226
Note. IHB = interpersonal helping behavior. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion partially explained by the IHB that is stimulated by grat-

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between
work-specific gratitude on the one hand and exhaustion
and disengagement on the other hand. In specific, this
study examined whether and to what extent IHB mediates
the relationship between work-specific gratitude and these
two dimensions of burnout. In line with the broaden-and-
build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), our results show a
negative relationship between work-specific gratitude and
both exhaustion and disengagement. This suggests that
work-specific gratitude may help to regain positive states
at work by creating an upward spiral of optimal functioning
in which (interpersonal) resources are gained, as indicated
by Fredrickson (2000), which may help to decrease both
emotional exhaustion and disengagement of the individual.
Our results also indicate that work-specific gratitude
enhances IHB and that IHB mediates the relationship
between work-specific gratitude and disengagement. This
aligns with the find-remind-and-bind theory that proposes
that gratitude stimulates the exploration of new ways to
bind with others (Algoe, 2012). In turn, this reciprocation
in the form of IHB decreases disengagement by binding
these individuals together and increasing dedication to
(others in) the work context. This suggests that the neg-
ative effect of work-specific gratitude on disengagement is
itude through upward reciprocity.
Contrary to our expectations, our results show that IHB
does not mediate the relationship between work-specific
gratitude and exhaustion. According to Jang et al. (2020),
helping behavior can be both stress-inducing and stress
relieving, depending on whether it is motivated by social
pressure. Other research has found a positive relationship
between helping and strain based on the idea that helping
requires the individual to use resources, which may result
in higher resource depletion (Bergeron, 2007) and the fact
that IHB can be experienced as an involuntary or pres-
sured act of effort (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). As a
result of perceived gratitude, one can still experience a
depleting external pressure to reciprocate with helping
behavior (Kim & Qu, 2020; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2013). This underexplored ambiguity in the effect of
IHB (resulting from gratitude) on exhaustion may explain
the insignificance of this mediation in our study. Future
research may therefore explore this ambiguity by studying
the role of social pressure (resulting from gratitude) in this
relationship and to what extent the use of resources for
helping behavior derived from gratitude may increase
strain.
By exploring the differential effects that gratitude has on
the two main dimensions of burnout (i.e., disengagement

© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology

 8 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
and exhaustion; Demerouti et al., 2010), this study ex-
tends previous research into the relationship between
gratitude and burnout and underlines the importance of
considering the separate dimensions of burnout in em-
pirical research. Furthermore, our results showed that
although IHB is an explanatory factor in the relationship
between gratitude and disengagement, it is not in the
relationship between gratitude and exhaustion. These
insights contribute to our understanding of the complexity
of the relationship between the positive emotion of grat-
itude and the different dimensions of burnout within the
work context and serve as a steppingstone for future re-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
search that aims to explore this complexity.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In addition, this study provides insights into the effects
of contextualized work-specific gratitude, as previously
introduced by Fredrickson (2000), by showing both direct
significant effects of work-specific gratitude on IHB, ex-
haustion, and disengagement, as well as a mediated effect
on disengagement through IHB. In this way, this study
helps to deepen insights into contextualized gratitude
(Allemand & Hill, 2016) and contribute to the literature on
gratitude by confirming that work-specific gratitude can be
of value to organizations due to its effects on IHB, ex-
haustion, and disengagement.
Next to this, we build on and extend previous research
on the effects of gratitude on burnout dimensions by
basing our study on a general working population, as
opposed to previous research that focused on specific
occupations (e.g., mental health professionals; Lanham
et al., 2012). Finally, this study showed that IHB plays a
mediating role in the relationship between gratitude and
disengagement. Based on this, our study suggests that
work-specific gratitude can indeed be a “means of achieving
individual and organizational growth” for a variety of
occupations (Fredrickson, 2000; p. 131) by sparking IHB.
Our results provide insights into how disengagement can
be decreased by work-specific gratitude and may en-
courage future research to explore how work-specific
gratitude may be enhanced.
Finally, albeit not the main aim of our study, our results
show that most relationships remained stable over our
timeframe of 5 weeks, with the exception of the rela-
tionship between gratitude and disengagement, which
slightly decreased over time. Future research with more
extensive longitudinal designs may provide further in-
sights in how the effect of gratitude changes over time.
Limitations and Future Research
Six limitations of our study need to be considered. First,
the current study does not use any experimental design.
Therefore, conclusions on causality cannot be drawn, as
Journal of Personnel Psychology
we had no control over the causal variable. It is recom-
mended for future research to apply an experimental study
design by, for example, using a written gratitude expres-
sion experiment (Grant & Gino, 2010) or a counting
blessing experiment (Froh et al., 2008).
Second, due to convenience sampling, the generaliz-
ability of the results is limited (Ritchie et al., 2003). Al-
though our sample included respondents working in
various sectors and countries, our sample was highly ed-
ucated (53.0% obtained a master’s or bachelor’s degree
compared to the average of 34.6% of 25- to 54-year-olds in
Europe with tertiary education; Eurostat, 2020). To pre-
vent misrepresentations, future studies should improve
the generalizability by using alternative sampling methods
(e.g., purposive sampling).
Third, our use of self-report data entails the risk that our
results are subject to common-source bias. However,
because CFA showed our measures to be distinct, it can be
assumed that common-source bias is not a major problem
(Spector, 2006). In addition, Podsakoff et al. (2012) in-
dicate that self-reports are adequate for gathering data on
“individual’s perceptions, beliefs, judgments, or feelings”
(p. 549). Still, future research could explore alternative
multi-source measurements. For example, the measure-
ment tool for IHB (Choi, 2006; Moorman & Blakely, 1995)
could be used to include another source, such as direct
colleagues.
Fourth, the IHB scale showed a relatively moderate
reliability (α between .65 and .71). This aligns with previous
work from Choi (2006) that demonstrated a relatively low
α. Fisher and To (2012) argue that Cronbach’s α could be
less suited for testing the reliability within a study with
multiple time points since these studies explore within-
person variability over time. Therefore, we have explored
the more appropriate statistic of composite reliability of
the IHB scale, which showed to be satisfactory (ω = .67; cf.
Bentler, 2009). Still, future research could explore alter-
native scales, such as Williams and Anderson’s (1991)
extra-role behavior scale.
Next, although participants were informed about the
inclusion criteria (age, work hours, planned leave, and
daily interaction) in the written consent form, compliance
with the inclusion criteria relating to work hours, planned
leave, and having daily interaction with colleagues was not
verified in analyses. Therefore, the impact of the inclusion
criteria on the external validity of this research may be
overestimated (Patino & Ferreira, 2018). Future research
would benefit from verifying compliance in the first stages
of analyses.
Finally, since our primary interest was in between-
person effects, we did not sufficiently control for within-
person effects. Therefore, there is the risk that these ef-
fects might be overestimated (Rights et al., 2020). While
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
panel analyses account for potential endogeneity, future
research can prevent this by controlling for week-level
influences (e.g., weekly work hours or work pressure).
Practical Implications
This study demonstrated a direct relationship between
gratitude on the one hand and disengagement and ex-
haustion on the other hand, as well as an indirect relationship
between work-specific gratitude and disengagement, me-
diated by IHB. Hence, this study may help practitioners, as
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
they can enhance work-specific gratitude by offering training
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to employees (Di Fabio et al., 2017). For example, Fehr et al.
(2017, p. 376) recommend “making gratitude a fundamental
part of the employee experience, such that leaders and
managers can leverage the benefits of gratitude for em-
ployees and the organization.” This can be done by aligning
human resource management practices and creating bun-
dles of human resource management practices (e.g., per-
formance management, onboarding, or human resource
development) that support gratitude, providing gratitude
training (Di Fabio et al., 2017), or stimulating exercises
such as counting blessings or appreciative inquiry (Lai &
O’Carroll, 2017). An example of an extensive intervention
is the 4-week gratitude intervention by Jung and Han
(2017), which covers four stages: introduction to grati-
tude, recognition of gratitude, expression of gratitude,
and empathy of gratitude. Moreover, our results suggest
IHB as a method to counteract disengagement among
employees. Apart from increasing gratitude, other
promising strategies to increase IHB within organizations
are stimulating transformational or ethical leadership
that actively promotes a “helping culture” (Kalshoven &
Boon, 2012), creating a culture with high psychological
safety (Frazier & Tupper, 2018), and a strong focus on
positive moods and emotions (Tsai et al., 2007). Our
study suggests that positive emotions such as gratitude
can both directly and indirectly create beneficial out-
comes within organizations. We hope that our results
inspire both practitioners and researchers to further in-
vestigate the effects of positive emotions at work.
References
AbuAlRub, R. F. (2004). Job stress, job performance, and social
support among hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,
36(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04016.x
Aguilera, A. M., Fortuna, F., Escabias, M., & Di Battista, T. (2021).
Assessing social interest in burnout using Google trends data.
Social Indicators Research, 156(2–3), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11205-019-02250-5
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
9
Aleksandra Basinska, B., Wiciak, I., & Maria Dåderman, A. (2014).
Fatigue and burnout in police officers: The mediating role of
emotions. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
and Management, 37(3), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1108/
PIJPSM-10-2013-0105
Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of grat-
itude in everyday relationships. Social and Personality Psy-
chology Compass, 6(6), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2012.00439.x
Allan, M. (2018). Experience sampling method. In M. K. Berkland
(Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of communication research
methods (pp. 472–474). SAGE Publications.
Allemand, M., & Hill, P. L. (2016). Gratitude from early adulthood to
old age. Journal of Personality, 84(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jopy.12134
Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data (4th ed.).
John Wiley & Sons.
Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work:
Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational
identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46(3), 379–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094869
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial
behavior: Helping when it Costs you. Psychological Science, 17(4),
319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x
Bentler, P. M. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based
internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika, 74(1), 137–143.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9100-1
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational
citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of
Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/20159357
Bliese, P. D., Schepker, D. J., Essman, S. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2020).
Bridging methodological divides between macro- and microresearch:
Endogeneity and methods for panel data. Journal of Management,
46(1), 70–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319868016
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for hetero-
scedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica,
47(5), 1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.
org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Chan, D. W. (2011). Burnout and life satisfaction: Does gratitude
intervention make a difference among Chinese school teachers
in Hong Kong? Educational Psychology, 31(7), 809–823. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.608525
Chen, L. H., & Chang, Y.-P. (2014). Cross-lagged associations between
gratitude and adolescent athlete burnout. Current Psychology,
33(4), 460–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9223-8
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-
fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM0902_5
Choi, J. N. (2006). Multilevel and cross-level effects of workplace
attitudes and group member relations on interpersonal helping
behavior. Human Performance, 19(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327043hup1904_4
Cohn, M. A, & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). In search of durable positive
psychology interventions: Predictors and consequences of long-
term positive behavior change. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
5(5), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.508883
Croissant, Y., & Millo, G. (2008). Panel data econometrics in R: The
plm package. Journal of Statistical Software, 27(2), 1–43. https://
doi.org/10.18637/jss.v027.i02
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace:
A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management,
25(3), 357–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500305
Journal of Personnel Psychology
 10
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The
convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-
multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological As-
sessment, 19(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work
engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of
both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019408
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., & Bucci, O. (2017). Gratitude in orga-
nizations: A contribution for healthy organizational contexts.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2017.02025
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (Eds). (2004). The psychology of
gratitude. Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Why gratitude enhances well-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
being: What we know, what we need to know. In K. M. Sheldon, T.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology:
Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 248–262). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.003.
0016
Eurostat. (2020). Employment - annual statistics [report]. https://ec.
europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment
_-_annual_statistics#Female_employment_rate_increases_over_
time\
Fehr, R., Fulmer, A., Awtrey, E., & Miller, J. A. (2017). The grateful
workplace: A multilevel model of gratitude in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 361–381. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2014.0374
Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling
methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33(7), 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1803
Frazier, M. L., & Tupper, C. (2018). Supervisor prosocial motivation,
employee thriving, and helping behavior: A trickle-down model
of psychological safety. Group & Organization Management,
43(4), 561–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116653911
Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Why positive emotions matter in orga-
nizations: Lessons from the broaden-and-build model. The
Psychologist-Manager Journal, 4(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.
1037/h0095887
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066x.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger
upward spirals toward Emotional well-being. Psychological
Science, 13(2), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00431
Froh, J. J., Bono, G., & Emmons, R. (2010). Being grateful is beyond
good manners: Gratitude and motivation to contribute to society
among early adolescents. Motivation and Emotion, 34(2),
144–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9163-z
Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings
in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and
subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2),
213–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.005
Gabana, N. T., Steinfeldt, J. A., Wong, Y. J., & Chung, Y. B. (2017).
Gratitude, burnout, and sport satisfaction among college
student-athletes: The mediating role of perceived social sup-
port. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 11(1), 14–33. https://
doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2016-0011
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 attacks of September 11. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 541–553. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.004
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way:
Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial
Journal of Personnel Psychology
A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6),
946–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017935
Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against
feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task
and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 111(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.
2009.07.003
Guan, B., & Jepsen, D. M. (2020). Burnout from emotion regulation
at work: The moderating role of gratitude. Personality and In-
dividual Differences, 156, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2019.109703
Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics.
Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1272. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated
mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Com-
munication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637751.2017.1352100
Hill, P. L., Allemand, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2013). Examining the
pathways between gratitude and self-rated physical health
across adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1),
92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.011
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the
nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of
resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Inagaki, T. K., Bryne Haltom, K. E., Suzuki, S., Jevtic, I., Hornstein, E.,
Bower, J. E., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2016). The neurobiology of
giving versus receiving support. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78(4),
443–453. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000302
Jang, S., Allen, T. D., Kim, E., & Cho, S. (2020). An examination of the
temporal order of helping behaviours and emotional exhaustion.
Stress and Health, 36(5), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.
2943
Jans-Beken, L. G. P. J. (2018). Appreciating gratitude: New per-
spectives on the gratitude- mental health connection [Doctoral
dissertation]. https://figshare.com/s/57003ff97dc40449521b
Jung, M., & Han, K. (2017). Effectiveness of gratitude disposition
promotion program on depression and quality of life of chronic
schizophrenic patients. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 59(2), 189–195.
https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_227_16
Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C. T. (2012). Ethical leadership, employee
well-being, and helping: The moderating role of human resource
management. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 60–68.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000056
Kerr, S. L., O’Donovan, A., & Pepping, C. A. (2015). Can gratitude and
kindness interventions enhance well-being in a clinical sample?
Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10902-013-9492-1
Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2020). The mediating roles of gratitude and
obligation to link employees’ social exchange relationships and
prosocial behavior. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 32(2), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCHM-04-2019-0373
Lai, S. T., & O’Carroll, R. E. (2017). ‘The three good things’-the effects
of gratitude practice on wellbeing: A randomised controlled
trial. Health Psychology Update, 26(1), 10–18. https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/ Siew_Tim_Lai2/publication/313845439
_’The_Three_Good_Things’_-_The_effects _of_gratitude_prac-
tice_on_wellbeing_A_randomised_controlled_trial/links/
58aa85f2aca27206d9b98829/The-Three-Good-Things-The-ef-
fects-of-gratitude-practice-on-wellbeing-A-randomised-con-
trolled-trial.pdf
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. (2012). Gratitude
and depressive symptoms: The role of positive reframing and
positive emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 26(4), 615–633. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.595393
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work
Lanham, M., Rye, M., Rimsky, L., & Weill, S. (2012). How gratitude
relates to burnout and job satisfaction in mental health pro-
fessionals. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 34(4), 341–354.
https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.34.4.w35q80w11kgpqn26
Lee, J.-Y., Kim, S.-Y., Bae, K.-Y., Kim, J.-M., Shin, I.-S., Yoon, J.-S., &
Kim, S.-W. (2018). The association of gratitude with perceived
stress and burnout among male firefighters in Korea. Personality
and Individual Differences, 123, 205–208. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2017.11.010
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of
the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.81.2.123
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of
frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
0033-2909.131.6.803
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout
inventory manual (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., Leiter, M. P., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schwab,
R. L. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory. Consulting psychologists
press.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experi-
enced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). The
grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112–127.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112
Mendonça, S. E., Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Payir, A., & Tudge, J. R. H.
(2018). The development of gratitude in seven societies: Cross-
cultural highlights. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(1), 135–150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117737245
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism
as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127–142.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160204
Nowak, M. A., & Roch, S. (2007). Upstream reciprocity and the
evolution of gratitude. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Bi-
ological Sciences, 274(1610), 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2006.0125
O’ Leary, K., & Dockray, S. (2015). The effects of two novel gratitude
and mindfulness interventions on well-being. The Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 21(4), 243–245.
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2014.0119
O’Connell, B. H., O’Shea, D., & Gallagher, S. (2018). Examining
psychosocial pathways underlying gratitude interventions: A
randomized controlled trial. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(8),
2421–2444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9931-5
Oberski, D. (2014). lavaan. survey: An R package for complex survey
analysis of structural equation models. Journal of Statistical
Software, 57(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v057.i01
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Orga-
nizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and
consequences. Sage.
Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2018). Inclusion and exclusion criteria
in research studies: Definitions and why they matter. Jornal
Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 44(2), 84. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S1806-37562018000000088
Pieper, J. R. (2015). Uncovering the nuances of referral hiring: How
referrer characteristics affect referral hires’ performance and
likelihood of voluntary turnover. Personnel Psychology, 68(4),
811–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12097
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of
the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
© 2021 Hogrefe Publishing
11
future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).
Sources of method bias in social science research and rec-
ommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
120710-100452
Rights, J. D., Preacher, K. J., & Cole, D. A. (2020). The danger of
conflating level-specific effects of control variables when pri-
mary interest lies in level-2 effects. British Journal of Mathe-
matical and Statistical Psychology, 73, 194–211. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bmsp.12194
Ring, P., Probst, C. C., Neyse, L., Wolff, S., Kaernbach, C., van Ei-
meren, T., Camerer, C. F., & Schmidt, U. (2018). It’s all about
gains: Risk preferences in problem gambling. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology: General, 147(8), 1241–1255. https://doi.
org/10.1037/xge0000418
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting
samples. In Maruster & Gijsenberg, Qualitative research methods
(pp. 77–108). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n7
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation
modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical
Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square
test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika,
66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02296192
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Organizational citizenship
behaviour and employee’s strain: Examining the buffering ef-
fects of leader support and participation in decision making.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2),
138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.633702
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research:
Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2),
221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955
Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2), 115–131. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3090173
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing
and reporting research instruments in science education. Re-
search in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tian, L., Du, M., & Huebner, E. S. (2015). The effect of gratitude on
elementary school students’ subjective well-being in schools:
The mediating role of prosocial behavior. Social Indicators Re-
search, 122(3), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0712-9
Titova, L., & Sheldon, K. M. (2021). Happiness comes from trying to
make others feel good, rather than oneself. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.
2021.1897867
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present:
Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral envi-
ronments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(4–5), 375–424. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(90)90017-Z
Tsai, W.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Liu, H.-L. (2007). Test of a model linking
employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1570–1583. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.92.6.1570
Tsang, J.-A. (2006). BRIEF REPORT Gratitude and prosocial be-
haviour: An experimental test of gratitude. Cognition & Emotion,
20(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930500172341
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facili-
tation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525–531.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.525
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and or-
ganizational commitment as predictors of organizational
Journal of Personnel Psychology
 12 A. Kersten et al., Paying Gratitude Forward at Work

citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), Publication Ethics

601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude and
well-being: A review and theoretical integration. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 30(7), 890–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.
2010.03.005
Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S.
(2008). A social-cognitive model of trait and state levels of
gratitude. Emotion, 8(2), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-
3542.8.2.281
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
included in the study.
Open Data
The data that support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Funding
No funds, grants, or other support was received.

History ORCID
Received January 27, 2021 Amber Kersten
Revision received July 29, 2021  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5326-5841
Accepted September 3, 2021
Published online November 22, 2021 Amber Kersten
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Department of Human Resource Studies

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Conflict of Interest Tilburg University

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are rel- Warandelaan 2
evant to the content of this article. 5037 AB Tilburg
The Netherlands
a.kersten@tilburguniversity.edu

Journal of Personnel Psychology © 2021 Hogrefe Publishing