Elise DeFusco

Journal Article Critique

Introduction:
The article I chose to read and discuss came from the Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 6, 946-955. Titled “A Little Thanks Goes a Long

Way: Explaining Why Gratitude Expressions Motivate Prosocial Behavior,” the article

discussed a study conducted by Adam M. Grant, from the University of Pennsylvania,

and Francesca Gino, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Major Research Questions/Hypothesis:

Grant and Gino explain that while many studies have established that gratitude

increases prosocial behavior, few have been conduct as to explain what psychological

mechanisms create this outcome. In an effort to further understand this phenomena, they

proposed “gratitude expressions can enhance prosocial behavior through both agentic and

communal mechanisms, such that when helpers are thanked for their efforts, they

experience stronger feelings of self-efficacy and social worth, which motivate them to

engage in prosocial behavior.” (946)

Study Methodology:
The study was conducted through four experiments. In the first, sixty-nine

undergrads were offered $10 to partake in an online study about writing skills and

feedback. A fake student sent a cover letter to the participant, which they evaluated and

then sent back. A response message was sent (by the experimenter) to the participant.

This message was the manipulated independent variable, and it came in two forms. Both

asked the student to help with a second cover letter (for free), but only half also included

an expression of thanks. A final questionnaire was sent to evaluate feelings of social

worth and self-efficacy, and the experimenter tracked whether participants provided help
on the second cover letter to obtain an objective measure of prosocial behavior.

In the second experiment they examined whether gratitude would create a “spill-

over” effect – that is, if gratitude from Individual A would make participants more likely

to help Individual B. The experiment was modeled the same as the first, only this time,

the request to evaluate a second cover letter came from a different student.

The third experiment was conducted using alumni soliciting for university

donations. This manipulation was to monitor the effect of a face-to-face interaction.

Fundraisers were randomly divided into two groups with different shifts to avoid

discussions. The only difference in treatment of the two groups was that one group

received thanks from the director of annual giving. To measure prosocial behavior, the

amounts of fundraising calls were monitored the week before and after the gratitude.

The fourth and final experiment was modeled after the first two, but with the

interpersonal aspect of the third experiment. Participants arrived individually at a

laboratory where they evaluated a cover letter for a fake student. A confederate acting as

the fake student then arrived to deliver some forms. The confederate either thanked the

participant in the course of light conversation, or did not. The confederate then left, and

the experimenter gave the participant another cover letter. They were told they could

leave whenever they completed the second cover letter. The amount of time voluntarily

spent editing the second cover letter was the measure of prosocial behavior.

In all experiments, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their feelings

of self-efficacy and social worth. This study used experimental methodology to test the

hypothesis. They all had a control group and an experimental group, an independent

variable (gratitude given), and a dependant variable (amount of prosocial behavior). The
major strengths of this method are that the experimenters were able to determine actual

cause and effect. The weaknesses were that the experimenters found inconsistencies

across the four studies. This exemplifies a weakness of experimental research - many

factors go into an equation/hypothesis and often not all of them can be investigated.

Researcher’s Conclusions:
The researchers concluded that perceptions of social worth strongly mediated the

prosocial behavior. These effects worked both towards the initial beneficiary, a different

beneficiary, and a university. They discovered that “consistently strong effects of

relatively small gratitude manipulations are noteworthy (Prentice & Miller, 1992). In

[their] first two experiments, a mere expression of thanks more than doubled the

likelihood that helpers would provide assistance again (from 25% to 55% and from 32%

to 66%). In [their] third experiment, gratitude produced more than 50% increases in the

number of calls that the average fundraiser made in a single week. In [their] fourth

experiment, a single gratitude expression yielded an increase of 15% in the average

amount of time spent helping.” (953) The questionnaire results revealed that while thanks

increased both self-efficacy and social worth, only social worth explained the effects of

gratitude on prosocial behavior. The sense of being socially valued was more important

to the participants then the feelings of competence they received from being thanked.

This supports a portion of the hypothesis presented – that a communal perspective can

explain why gratitude increases prosocial behavior. It does not however support the

experimenter’s idea that agentic mechanisms significantly affect prosocial behavior.

Potential Alternative Approaches:

The scientists conducting this study offer up a variety of suggestions that could be

used for further research on this subject. The feel that researchers could investigate
whether self-esteem is a micromediator of gratitude expressions on social worth, how

facial and nonverbal cues influence reactions to gratitude, or whether and when gratitude

expressions violate norms by making helpers feel uncomfortable or burdened. Another

way this study could be conducted may be through field experiments. An opportunity to

help someone in a public place (a mall, supermarket, etc) could arise, for which the

helper would either receive or not receive thanks. Then perhaps another opportunity

could arise a few moments later, and correlational data could be assessed. Unfortunately

by doing this you lose the hard data of cause and effect, based on the lack of a

questionnaire to determine how the helper felt in terms of gratitude.