Module 5

Unit 1
LOVE

Love is a set of emotions and behaviors characterized by intimacy, passion, and commitment. It involves
care, closeness, protectiveness, attraction, affection, and trust.

Love can vary in intensity and can change over time. It is associated with a range of positive emotions,
including happiness, excitement, life satisfaction, and euphoria, but it can also result in negative
emotions such as jealousy and stress.

We advocate love as being a centerpiece of a positive psychology.

Psychology historically has been more concerned with the bad and the ugly of human life than with the
good and the beautiful.

It took courage for Berscheid and Walster (1969, 1978) to introduce romantic love into the study of
“interpersonal attraction,” for Rubin (1970) to distinguish loving from liking, and for Harlow (1974) to
extend the study of love to nonhuman species.

History of love.

• Hatfield proposed that passionate love, as an intense attraction, has existed in all cultures and
all historical periods and is essentially a “human universal.”

• Courtly love idealized the love felt toward another person, a love of intense passion between
two people who generally were not married to each other.

• Slowly, this notion of passionate love between man and woman, within a courtship context, led
to “love marriages,” often to the consternation of those who held to traditional norms.

• If the passion aspect of love is not sufficient to bond partners in a relationship, perhaps the
addition of other love components such as friendship would strengthen the bond.

• In fact, many young couples now seek actively partners who are good companions as well as
good lovers.

• Sprecher and Regan (1998) found that both companionate love and passionate love were
related to commitment and relationship satisfaction.

• Friendship, along with passion, is thus an important ingredient of love.

• Sexuality and marriage have typically been connected, but we believe that love, sex, marriage
(or cohabitation), and friendship are increasingly being linked in romantic relationships.

Models for Explaining Love

There are many perspectives on the study of love. We provide a sketch of the most popular approaches,
with a sample of research findings to follow in later sections. Theories of love are disparate and difficult
to classify. Nevertheless, they may be grouped under two broad headings: naturalistic/biological and
psychological/social. Naturalistic approaches are rooted in the body, in emotion, and in our evolutionary
heritage— especially as evolution relates to sexuality. In the psychological/social approach, there are
concepts such as cognition (e.g., prototypes), social motives, interaction and communication, and
various classifications of love.

Naturalistic/Biological Approaches

Approaches to passionate and companionate love, attachment processes, and the evolution of love
provide an overview of the naturalistic/biological classification.

Passionate and Companionate Love

Berscheid and Walster (1978) defined passionate love as a state of total absorption of two lovers, with
mood swings between ecstacy and anguish. Companionate love is the affection felt by two people
whose lives are deeply intertwined. Thus, love begins in the heat of passion but eventually cools into the
quiet glow of companionship. This contrast of passion versus companionship received its fullest
development from Walster and Walster (1978). More recently, Hatfield (1988) viewed the two types of
love as coexisting in a relationship rather than as being sequential. Hatfield also noted that people
appear to want both passion and companionship in their love relationships. This theme of including both
passion and companionship or friendship within the love bond was noted earlier and has been echoed
by other scholars (e.g., Noller, 1996; Sprecher & Regan, 1998).

Attachment Approaches

This approach was developed out of the work of Bowlby (1969), who studied the types of relationships
(e.g., secure, anxious, avoidant) that infants form with their caregivers. These early attachments are
posited to be causally related to subsequent relationships. For example, Hazan and Shaver (1987)
applied attachment theory to adult love relationships, noting that it provides an explanation for both the
joys and the sorrows manifested in adult love. It should be noted, however, that the evidence regarding
this proposed relationship between childhood and adult attachment styles is mixed, with questions of
attachment “stability” awaiting further research (Feeney & Noller, 1996).

Evolution of Love

Mellen (1981) argued that the survival of the human species necessitated an emotional bond between
breeding pairs of partners so that both partners would attend to their helpless infants. Lacking intensive
caregiving from both adults, pairs without such bonds lost the evolutionary race through higher infant
mortality. Such primitive emotional bonding was hypothesized to be the beginning of love. Related
themes have been developed further by evolutionary psychologists. For example, Buss (1988) defined
love as consisting of behaviors enacted by both females and males that strengthen the bonding function
and ultimately serve to perpetuate the human species. Building on Trivers’s (1972) differential parental
investment model, in which males seek to mate with many females, whereas females mate more
selectively and nurture their few offspring, evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized selected
gender differences in courtship and mating strategies. There is some supportive research for this
evolutionary approach to interpersonal behaviors (e.g., Buss & Kenrick, 1998; C. Hendrick & Hendrick,
1991), although there also are vigorous counterarguments (Eagly & Wood, 1999).
Psychological/ Social Approaches

Prototypes of love

• Fehr (e.g., 1993, 1994) construed love as a prototype or “best example,” defined by its best or
most representative set of features.

• Fehr discovered that respondents rated companionate love as most typical of love, with
maternal love, parental love, and friendship as the best examples.

• Passionate and sexual love received lower prototypicality ratings.

• Regan, Kocan, prototype study of romantic love in which participants rated the central features
of romantic love, found that passion was among the list of central features, but it still ranked
below several companionate features (e.g., honesty, trust).

• Within this research paradigm, it appears that the most general concept of love is that of
companionship. Romantic love is conceived as companionate love plus passion.

Self expansion

• Aron and Aron (1986, 1996), based on Eastern traditions (e.g., Hinduism) concerning the
concept of self, proposed that humans have a basic motive for self-expansion.

• This growth of self may incorporate physical possessions, as well as power and influence.

• Falling in love creates a rapid expansion of self-boundaries and therefore is pleasurable.

• When two people are falling in love, they can mutually incorporate one another into the
expansion process. In this way, “you and me” becomes “us.”

Love triangle

• In his Triangular Theory of Love, Sternberg (1986) proposed that love is a mix of intimacy,
passion, and commitment.

• A given relationship may be high or low on each concept, with eight types of love being possible.

• For example, the presence of all three components is named “consummate love,” the absence
of all three is “nonlove,” and so on.

• More recently, Sternberg has focused on love as a social construction, varying across time and
cultures (e.g., Beall & Sternberg, 1995).

• Consistent with this view, Sternberg (1998) has proposed that love is also a very personal form
of social construction, a story that each individual creates by living it.

Love styles
 • In developing a typology of the different ways that people love each other, Lee (1973) used the
metaphor of a color wheel on which to place his many “colors” of love.

• As with color, there were primary love styles and secondary, and even tertiary, mixes.

• Attention has focused on six relatively independent types (styles) of love. In brief, the six styles
cover the gamut.

• Eros is passionate love, where the lover idealizes the partner, has definite preferences for
physical characteristics in a partner, and pursues love with intensity.

• Ludus is love played as a game, for mutual enjoyment, without the intensity of Eros. Ludus is
short on commitment, and the “game of love” can occur with multiple partners simultaneously.

• Storge is friendship love and is analogous to companionate love.

• Pragma is practical love; it involves “shopping” for a mate with a list of desired qualities in hand
(e.g., computer matching). In Pragma, a mate is selected on the basis of an “appraisal”.

• Mania is “manic” love. A manic lover desperately wants love but often finds that it is painful.
Thus, “stormy passion” is an apt descriptor, and a cycle of jealousy, dramatic breakups, and
equally dramatic reconciliations characterizes this love style.

• Agape is selfless and giving love where the person is fully concerned with the partner’s welfare.
Some degree of agapic altruism bolsters a love relationship; total agapic love is reserved
typically for the heavenly, not the human, realm.

Measurement of Love

• Singer (1984a) made a basic distinction between appraisal and bestowal. People constantly
appraise objects and other people on both physical and psychological attributes.

• Appraisal of value is a human judgment process that lends itself readily to measurement.

• Singer is ambivalent on this question, believing that love requires something more—a bestowal.

• According to Singer, the bestowal of love, although initially based on appraisal, ultimately
becomes independent of appraisal and constitutes an unqualified, unencumbered emotional
valuing of the other. Love is offered to the partner simply as a gift.

• Concepts such as bestowal seem important for the development of a positive psychology:

• The concept of bestowal as a human process that becomes independent of appraisal is

intriguing because it provides a means for new creation within the world.

• Bestowal as gift is an aptly chosen metaphor. Love as bestowal creates what did not exist
before, a new value. In this sense love can be unconditional. It is its own value.

• This notion also suggests why people are so preoccupied with love. On one view, love may be
nothing but a bonding glue for creatures who evolved as group animals; but from the inside,
 from the human viewpoint, love, as bestowal, is the very act of creation that allows humans to
be god-like.

• Only in bestowing love is something truly new created, and people return to that magic potion
again and again. It sustains life—and the species.

• There are paper-and-pencil questionnaires that purport to measure one or more types of love.

• Some of the more popular of these measures include- Rubin’s (1970) scales that assess loving
and liking;

• Hatfield and Sprecher’s (1986) Passionate Love Scale; a variety of instruments to measure
attachment based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) seminal study;

• Fehr’s (1993) various prototype measures of love; Davis and Todd’s (1985) Relationship Rating
Form; and Sternberg’s (1986) Triangular Theory of Love Scale.

• The Love Attitudes Scale (LAS), is based on Lee’s (1973) typological approach to love.

• Construed the six types of love as six variables and, based on work by Lasswell and Lasswell
(1976), developed an initial set of six subscales (C. Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).

Unit 2

The Role of Minding in the Enhancement of Closeness

Minding is an interactive combination of thought and behavior patterns that we propose as

promoting stability and feelings of closeness. More specifically, we define minding as a reciprocal
knowing process involving the nonstop, interrelated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons in a
relationship. There are five specific components of minding, which are described subsequently.

Minding Model

Knowing and Being Known

The first component of minding refers to behaviors aimed at having partners know each other.
These include questioning your partner about his thoughts, feelings, and past experiences, as well as
disclosing appropriately about yourself (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Through this search to know a
partner, intuition can develop. Partners often learn so much about each other that it is relatively
easy to discern nonverbal cues, and to “read between the lines” about motivations, emotions, and
experiences that may be troubling the other. In well-minded relationships, each partner will
recognize that people change in many ways over time. These changes can involve ever so subtle
aspects of their physical bodies and their psychological compositions. Minding partners also will
recognize that continuous change increases the challenge in knowing each other. It takes time and
energy for both partners to find the right forums to discuss certain issues and to feel comfortable in
being very open and expressive. Most important, the focus in minding is on wanting to know about
one’s partner. There is great motivation to know about the other’s background, hopes, fears,
uncertainties, and so on. “Good communication” in a relationship must constantly be nurtured, and
built on the premise that one can express feelings often and fully. In minding theory, accurate and
frequent communication is important, but the emphasis is on actively seeking the other’s self-
expression or information, rather than pursuing self expression. It is this overt desire to really know
another person that, we believe, creates an atmosphere that allows more open disclosure and
“good communication” about “we” over “me” perspectives. This search to know and understand the
other also should be undertaken amid a continuing stream of explicit behaviors aimed at facilitating
the relationship. Everything from doing an errand to smiling at one’s partner falls under this rubric.
If the errand is one you know your partner dreads doing herself, or if the smile is given across the
room as an acknowledgment of a private joke, these facilitative acts are based on knowledge that
partners have shared. Buying your partner flowers is an affectionate act, but it is much more
meaningful when you choose a particular variety because you know it is your partner’s favorite. It is
a loving gesture regardless, but the latter has the extra impact of minding the relationship—moving
the partners toward a closer bond.

Attribution

The second component is the attributions that individuals make about their partners’ behavior.
Attributions refer to the interpretations or explanations that people make for events in their lives.
Attribution has been a central concept in the close relationship field for decades (Harvey, 1987).
Fritz Heider (1958, 1976), who pioneered the description of human attributional patterns, suggested
that attribution was a broad, pervasive type of activity that occurred almost anytime persons
interacted with or encountered events in their environment. One of his examples was an occasion
when he heard the back door of his home slam shut and immediately hypothesized (i.e., formed the
attributional hunch) that his wife, Grace, had returned from the grocery store. The slamming of the
door created the need for an explanation, which in Fritz’s thinking was his wife’s return. In Heider’s
view, we continually create these attributional explanations for each incident in our daily lives. One
of the most common types of attributional patterns that Heider identified is how we explain others’
behaviors in terms of either the situation or their personalities. In relationships, the critical
attributions pertain to the dispositional explanations (Jones & Davis, 1965) that people make when
they observe their partner act in certain ways. For example, a wife comes home and begins
screaming that she wants to be left alone, then goes into the bedroom and says that she does not
want to talk about how she feels. The husband compares this act with her typical behavior after
returning home from the office. If this type of behavior is rare, he may conclude that a unique
external event must have occurred, perhaps at work, and caused his wife’s negative behavior. If,
however, she often acts in this way, he likely will attribute the behavior more to her grouchy and
unhappy disposition than to some particular incident that she encountered. Just as Heider asserted
that attribution occurs constantly in everyday life, we reassert that attributions always are occurring
in close relationships. Attributional activity is a central way in which we develop a sense of meaning
about our relationships. As such, attributional activity reflects our trust and belief in our partners.
When we attribute our partners’ negative behaviors, such as rudeness or insensitivity, to outside
causes, we are essentially telling ourselves that they are not really insensitive; it’s the situation. We
believe better of them. If we attribute our partners’ positive, caring acts to outside events or to self-
interest, however, we are doubting their love and sincerity. Relationship-enhancing attributions
tend to be those that attribute positive behaviors to dispositional causes: He came home early to
spend time with me. She called me at work because she cares about me. Negative behaviors, on the
other hand, are attributed more often to external causes: She yelled at me because she is stressed
at work. He is late for our date because his car broke down. Attribution theorists such as Heider
recognized that people’s attributions of causality and responsibility often are mixtures of internal
and external attribution. For example, the husband in the previous example may emphasize his
wife’s stress at work but also attribute part of her temper display to her susceptibility to such
stresses. In wellminded relationships, these attributional activities will be carefully carried out,
which includes working to develop fair mixtures of internal and external attributions. Partners will
recognize how easy it is to be mistaken about one another’s behavior, feelings, intentions, and
motivations, and how important it is to feel firm about attributions regarding their partner’s
behavior in different situations. Flexibility and willingness to reexamine attributions about one’s
partner and the relationship characterize well-minded relationships. Partners who are minding well
can use the knowledge they have gained about each other to help ensure that they do not
automatically attribute all good, or all bad, to their partners. Parts of the minding process build on
each other. The knowledge and attribution components work together to help couples build trust
and positive beliefs that are based in real knowledge and about which they can feel confident.

Acceptance and Respect

Acceptance and respect are high on the list of the prototypical features of love (Fehr, 1988).
Through the minding process, one finds out a great deal of information about a partner, sharing
innermost thoughts and feelings and revealing the past. We need to accept what we come to know
about our close other through this process and to respect the other based on this knowledge. If we
have doubts or cannot accept major parts of who our partners are, then minding is much more
difficult to implement. Empathy and empathic accuracy (Ickes, 1996) are at the center of acceptance
and respect in close relationships (see Batson, Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, this volume). Researchers
(e.g., Gottman, 1994, 1995) who follow couples over time and study their interactions have found
that those who display positive types of social behavior together are more satisfied with their
relationships. These positive behaviors include listening respectfully to the other’s opinions, working
out compromises that accept the other’s needs, paying attention to the other during conflicts, and
accepting the other’s responses. All these behaviors are illustrative of respect for the other and
acceptance of the other’s feelings and thoughts. Less happy couples, on the other hand, tend to
display less respectful behavior toward each other, such as verbal attacks, withdrawal, or criticism of
the other’s ideas. Acceptance is not intended tobe absolute. It is built into minding that as much as
possible is discovered as early as possible so that potentially disastrous relationships can be avoided
altogether. But even after a commitment has been made, some behaviors will be unacceptable.
Certainly a partner who causes physical or emotional harm to the other and refuses to desist in such
behavior cannot be accepted. Refusing to participate equally in a relationship or in the spirit of the
minding process of relating may be a choice that is too destructive for another partner to accept.
Overt dishonesty about past events that have direct impact on a current relationship also may cause
insurmountable changes in partners’ thoughts and feelings about each other. But problems from the
past, personality quirks, or differences of opinion that cause no direct damage to the other or to the
relationship are aspects of a partner that most likely can be accepted and respected, even when
learned about years later. The ability to accept and respect each other is crucial to the success of the
complete minding process. Over time, minding leads to feelings of deep intimacy as each person
recognizes the large amount of sincerity, effort, and care being exhibited by both partners.
Acceptance is necessary for this feeling of closeness and intimacy to be created.

Reciprocity in Minding

Minding cannot long involve just one member of a couple engaged in the requisite behavioral
patterns that we have outlined. There needs to be a sense of equity in relationships, such that each
partner receives benefits from the relationship roughly equal to the amount he or she contributes to
the relationship. When a person gives more than is received, this could lead to a sense of being
underappreciated or “used.” Conversely, someone who gives little to a relationship but receives
much from the other may conceivably develop equally uncomfortable feelings of guilt or obligation.
An inequitable relationship situation can thus affect long-term relationship stability and satisfaction.
There are challenges to this view. Communal relationship theorists (Mills & Clark, 1982) hypothesize
that in some kinds of relationships, people are willing to give and contribute freely without requiring
any “return” on their investment or effort. The ability of individuals to give communally is believed
to be adaptive for families, when parents, for example, give unconditionally to children. Communal
relationship theory may indeed be applicable to relationships in which the participants differ greatly
in terms of power or resources, and where these differences are dictated by outside circumstances
(age, serious illness, etc.). Most romantic relationships involve people who are at least possible
equals. Some studies have documented that, at least for American couples, a sense of equality is
connected to higher relationship satisfaction. People who feel either “underbenefited” or
“overbenefited” in their relationships express less satisfaction than those who believe they are
equitably treated by their partners (Van Yperen & Buunk, 1991). In part, what people are doing in
minding is learning about the other’s attributions regarding relationship patterns and making
adjustments according to what they learn. The adjustments may involve challenges of these
attributions or accepting and taking these attributions into account. Berley and Jacobson (1984)
describe such a procedure for using attributions in relationship therapy on minding and counseling
couples. Reciprocity and mutuality are features of minding that cannot end if the relationship is to
be close and satisfying.

Continuity and Minding

Continuity pertains to a criterion for closeness articulated by Kelley and colleagues in a 1983 book:
“The close relationship is one of strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence that lasts over a
considerable period of time” (p. 38). Because people and situations change, the knowledge gained
about a partner through minding cannot remain static. This is a point that Kelley (1967) also made
about attributions mirroring the data appropriately, accurately reflecting the behavior or situation.
Each and every person represents an intricate set of experiences, personal qualities, dispositions,
hopes, plans, and potential reactions to environmental stimuli. Being and staying close to any
person over an extended period requires personal planning and action aimed at acquiring and
updating knowledge on a regular basis. We agree that the amount of time a couple has been
together does not necessarily correlate to how well that couple is minding. One couple may be
minding well after knowing each other a few weeks, while another couple may fail to achieve a high
state of minding after 30 years. Because of the complex nature of relationships, however, a
relatively complex process is necessary to understand and describe them. Minding is such a process
and will take some time to fully mature in a relationship. We also emphasize that minding is a
 process that leads to closeness and satisfaction, not an ultimate destination: Process implies time
and continuity, which is a principle that cannot be overlooked by the couple that wishes to be close
Table 30.1 presents adaptive and nonadaptive steps for developing close relationships based on
minding theory. It can be seen in Table 30.1 that the process moves from knowing and being known
through acceptance and respect, with reciprocity, motivation to continue the process, and actual
continuity as ongoing throughout. Nonadaptive steps may occur at any or all points in this process.

Unit 3
ALTRUISM
● Altruism is behavior that is aimed at benefiting another person.

● This type of prosocial behavior can be motivated by personal egotism, or it can be prompted by
“pure” empathy, or the desire to benefit another person irrespective of personal gain.

● Egotism and empathy are the two main areas discussed as motivations toward helping behavior;
however, Batson and colleagues (2011) suggest that collectivism, described as valuing the group
above oneself, and principlism, usually described as moral integrity, may be viewed as two other
potential contributors to some altruistic actions.

● Three of these types of altruism will be discussed here:

(a) reciprocity based (b) care based (c) kin based.

Reciprocity-based altruism
 ● Described by Trivers, involves the type of helping behavior that seems to be motivated by the
likelihood of reciprocity of the person in need—for example, deciding to help a coworker with a
project at work because you know you may need help on your own project in the future.

● This type of altruism is most often discussed as an egoistic type of altruism.

● Others have argued that this is not necessarily altruism per se, as it requires the benefits to the
helper to outweigh their costs over the longer term if it is to be sustained.

Care-based altruism

● Care-based altruism is instead discussed on the empathy side of the continuum in terms of
motivation and is believed to take place because of feelings of empathy for the recipient of the help
offered.

● Researchers in this area discuss this type of altruism occurring as a result of a connection being
formed between the helper and helpee, or because of a perceived or actual relativeness to the
helper.

● As an example, care-based altruism may involve a helper being willing to take on personal cost
to help a close friend. Friendships cannot be explained entirely by reciprocity as they are not usually
viewed by people as “exchanges''; in fact, when friendships are viewed in this way (e.g., when people
keep careful track of helps and hurts in a relationship), they often fail.

● Thus, this type of altruism represents more of an empathy-based motivation to help.

Kin-based altruism

● Kin-based altruism is similar to care-based altruism in that a connection exists between helper
and helpee but is relegated only to altruism directed toward family.

● This area seems to span the gap of egoism and empathy to some extent, as a closer personal
relationship is often present, perhaps making the helper desire to ease the helpee’s distress, but at
the same time some egoistic protection of genes may be involved in the motivation.

● At the same time, it is important to note that humans are rather unique in the involved level of
care (and high level of investment despite cost; think of the amount of sleep parents are willing to
lose with their newborn) they give their offspring, which goes far beyond what is ordinarily seen in
animals with regard to their young.

● Thus, this type of altruism cannot be completely explained by a pure sense of motivation
directed toward the protection of genes.

The Egotism Motive

● Egotism is the motive to pursue some sort of personal gain or benefit through targeted
behavior.

● Egotism has been heralded as one of the most influential of all human motives.
 ● Not surprisingly, therefore, egotism is seen as driving a variety of human actions,
including altruism.

● So, too, have several modern scholars reasoned that egotism fuels altruistic behavior.

● The essence of this position is that we care for other people because it benefits us to do
so.

● Furthermore, no matter how noble the altruism may appear, those in the egotism–
altruism camp believe that all altruistic actions produce an underlying benefit to the person who
is doing the good deeds.

● Thus, the prevailing motive here is, “I help because it benefits me.”

Forms of Egotism-Motivated Altruism

● The forms of such self-beneficial egotism may be straightforward, as when helping

another person results in public praise for the individual rendering the aid. In another variant of
praise, the helper may receive material rewards or honors for altruistic deeds.

● There are other examples of self-benefits where the helpers receive no external rewards
for their altruistic actions.

● For example, it is distressing to see another person in some sort of anguishing situation;
accordingly, we may help that person to lessen our own sense of personal torment or to escape
a sense of guilt for not helping when we step in and lend a hand to a needy person.

● Yet another possibility is that we simply may feel good about ourselves when we act
kindly toward another individual.

● Being known as a “generous person,” for example, may assist us in self-esteem or in the
esteem of others. Although this might not be something that directs every individual action in
our day, we might find ourselves almost habit bound to this type of action as a part of our desire
to be seen a certain way.

● Some studies appear to suggest that when no one is watching or help given is
anonymous, there are fewer acts of such altruism.

● Others support the idea that it is escaping increased sadness (not increased empathy)
brought on by witnessing a person in need that spurs helping.

● Although we have posed several variants, such egotistical or self-benefiting actions

involving altruism basically take one of the following three forms:

1. The helping person gets public praise or even a monetary reward, along with self praise
for having done that which is good.

2. The helping person avoids social or personal punishments for failing to help.
3. The helping person may lessen their personal distress at seeing another’s trauma.
The Empathy Motive and the Empathy–Altruism Hypothesis

● Empathy is an emotional response to the perceived plight of another person.

● One view of empathy is that it involves the ability to match another person’s emotions.

● Instead of this mimic-like reproduction of another person’s emotions, however,

empathy may entail a sense of tenderheartedness toward that other person.

● According to Batson, altruism involves human behaviors that are aimed at promoting

another person’s well-being.

empathy–altruism hypothesis

The claim that feeling empathic emotion for someone in need evokes altruistic motivation to relieve that
need has been called the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

According to this hypothesis, the greater the empathic emotion, the greater the altruistic motivation.

● empathy–altruism hypothesis, findings show that there are instances in which egotism
does not appear to explain such helping behaviors.

● One example addresses the argument that people help at least partially to avoid
aversive arousal and negative emotions that may occur as a result of not helping another.

● Much support has been found, however, for the idea that even when physical or
psychological escape from such a situation is made easy, individuals higher in empathy still help
those in need. Thus, the evidence appears to strongly support the view that having empathy for
another leads to a greater likelihood of helping that other person.

● Because of the efforts of Batson and other recent scholars, “pure” altruism arising from
human empathy has been viewed as a viable underlying motive for helping, in contrast to the
previous emphasis on egotism as the sole motive.

Genetic and Neural Foundations Related to Altruism Empathy

● The method for measuring genetic heritability is to compare the concordances of

empathy scores in monozygotic (identical) twins with the scores of dizygotic (fraternal) twins.

● For adult males, the empathy correlations for monozygotic and dizygotic twins were
found to be .41 and .05, respectively.

● Other studies have found monozygotic correlations in the range of .22 to .30, as
compared to dizygotic correlations of .05 to .09.

● The latter correlations still suggest a modest level of heritability for empathy.

● Several specific brain structures and substances are thought to participate in the process
of altruistic behavior.
 ● Some research has revealed that areas of the prefrontal and parietal cortices are
essential for empathy.

● Empathy requires the capacity to form internal simulations of another’s bodily or mental
states.

● Given that people who have damage to their right somatosensory cortices can no longer
judge others’ emotions, it follows that they have lost a skill that is crucial for empathy.

● Likewise, damage to the prefrontal cortex leads to impairments in appraising the

emotions of other people.

● Furthermore, beginning in the 1990s, researchers discovered “mirror neurons” that

react identically when an animal performs an action or witnesses another animal performing the
same action.

● Fetchenhauer, Groothuis, and Pradel posit that altruism could be the result of trait-like
behavior, as opposed to being state-like, leading people to act in this way more frequently.

● These researchers theorize that altruists may be actually able to recognize the trait of
altruism in one another and benefit evolutionarily from selecting a similarly altruistic mate.

● These ideas present another view of altruism as something more than just learned
behavior within the current time of a single individual’s life; rather, it may be an evolutionary
benefit developed over time.

● What is even more fascinating in this line of research is empathy at the trait level
appears to motivate actual helping behavior in a way that a tendency toward personal distress
does not.

● Researchers in this study measured both trait empathic concern and trait personal
distress by way of self-report questionnaires and then tested whether high scorers in one group
were more likely to behave altruistically in comparison to high scorers in the other.

● Findings showed that “trait empathic concern—and not trait personal distress—
motivates costly altruism”.

● This finding was supported by more activity shown in several areas of the brain (the
ventral tegmental area, caudate, and subgenual anterior cingulate regions) that are often linked
with caregiving and social attachment in those who are higher in trait empathic concern.

● A unique piece of this research is that the investigators supported the behavioral
findings with actual neurological data, giving us a clearer picture of how altruism might be
promoted.

Following are some genetic and neurological explanations for three types of altruism discussed earlier in
this chapter.
Reciprocity-Based Altruism

● With regard to reciprocity-based altruism (i.e., altruistic behavior that appears to occur
because of anticipated reciprocal gain), research with rats has garnered some interesting new
findings.

● In an interesting study by Rutte and Taborksy (2008), researchers found that rats were
likely to act in an altruistic way (i.e., giving a piece of food to another rat after securing one for
themselves), particularly if they saw some self-benefit (i.e., doing this more often for rats who
returned the favor at a later point).

● Not all rats in this study behaved in an altruistic way, but rats who did were treated

altruistically by others more often.

● Evolutionarily, it is somewhat illogical for this type of behavior to be reinforced, because

although altruism will sometimes be returned, a rat cannot predict which other rats will behave
in this way until they first experience it.

● As Zentall points out these attempts at altruism cannot be explained by cultural factors
as they are in humans and, as such, must be explained either by learning or genetic
predisposition.

● Additional evidence shows that reciprocal altruism may be present even in very young
children.

Care-Based Altruism

● Care-based altruism is linked closely to empathic concern and seemingly based on

removing distress from less robust individuals, and emerging research has found that the
presence of certain neurotransmitters in the brain may be responsible for enhancing altruistic
behavior, specifically the neuropeptide oxytocin.

● In a study by Marsh and colleagues (2015), experimenters set up a number of conditions

in which participants were asked to donate to an ecological/environmental cause (e.g.,
“preserve the rainforest”) or a more socially based cause (e.g., “preserve the indigenous
population living in the rainforest”).

● Results showed that when oxytocin was present at a higher level in the saliva of the
individual, there was a higher tendency to donate to a socially based cause, but this level
appeared to have no effect on likelihood of donation to the environmental cause.

● This provides some interesting links between this particular neuropeptide and prosocial
biases worthy of more research in this area.

Kin-Based Altruism

● This type of altruism is, as noted previously, selective helping behavior directed toward
biological family members and is an area in which much more research is needed.
 ● Some authors state that although “kin selection adequately explains some altruistic
behavior … it is not applicable to much human altruism” mostly because altruistic behavior does
not only occur within a familial context.

● One study in this area, however, shows that this type of behavior is linked to regions in
the brain that process information about the self and preference for familiar others.

● More research about potential predispositions to protect similar genes might elicit more

information about this type of altruism.

Cultivating Altruism

Egotism-Based Approaches to Enhancing Altruistic Actions

o We have found that people often may incorrectly assume that feeling good about themselves is not
part of rendering help.
o Enabling people to realize that they can help and, because of such actions, have higher self-esteem.
o Furthermore, we have found that people seem to take delight in learning that it is legitimate to feel
good about helping others.
o One way to unleash such positive feelings is to have the person engage in community volunteer
work.
o Local agencies assisting children, people with disabilities, older people who are alone, the homeless
and other low-income groups, and hospitals all need volunteers to render aid.
o Although this form of helping may begin as a voluntary experience, we have witnessed instances in
which our clients have changed their professions to involve activities where they support others and
get paid for it.
o General point, however, is that it feels good to help other people, and this simple premise has
guided some of our efforts at channeling people into volunteer positions.
o Although it is true that egoistic approaches result in benefits to others as much as those that are
based more purely on helping, the benefits to the helper may differ.
o Research shows that there may be some distinction between those who set out to help another to
attain this sort of egoistic gain and those who act due to less egoistic motivation.
o Konrath, Fuhrel-Forbis, Lou, and Brown studied motivations in older adults toward volunteer work
and found that those whose primary motivations were for self-gain had higher mortality risk 4 years
after the study was conducted in comparison to those whose primary motivations were more
directed at helping others.
o This finding was supported in subsequent study of these factors and was
o especially true in individuals who volunteered on a more regular basis.
Thus, although egoistic motivations may provide some of the same benefits that “true” altruists
obtain, there may still be greater benefits from acting outside of self-interest.

Empathy-Based Approaches to Enhancing Altruistic Actions

● A way to increase people’s likelihood of helping is to teach them to have greater empathy
for the circumstances of other people.

● Empathy can be promoted by having the person interact more frequently with people who
need help.

● Then, once the individual truly begins to understand the perspectives and motives of the
people who are being helped, this insight breaks down the propensity to view interpersonal matters
in terms of “us versus them.”

● People act in altruistic ways most often when they have some sort of affiliation with the
person they are helping.

● This research can also help us as individuals and as a society by further investigating the use
of empathy within multicultural and cross-cultural interactions.

● As one gets to know another’s plight or situation, it may be that feelings of empathy come
more easily.

● Thus, in interacting with individuals from cultural backgrounds other than your own,
ethnocultural empathy may be cultivated and measured.

● Wang and colleagues define this concept as “empathy directed toward people from racial
and ethnic cultural groups who are different from one’s own ethnocultural group”.

● Development of this type of empathy seems to be aided by close interactions with members
of groups who are different from oneself.

● In surrounding ourselves with others who are similar to us, we enjoy comfort and familiarity,
but this same action can also lead to a lack of understanding about the situations of others who are
unlike us.

● This can, at times, lead to scapegoating and stereotyping.

● By engaging with others from different backgrounds, we learn about history and ways in
which certain groups and individuals (perhaps particularly those who have been marginalized in the
past) have been treated and mistreated.

● We may even begin to relate to them and see similarities between us as well.

In helping to cultivate ethnocultural empathy in our children and in ourselves, we lay a foundation
for a more understanding world.

● Another means of enhancing empathy is to point out similarities with another person that
may not be obvious.

● These similarities can be as simple as having grown up in the same part of the country,
having done work of the same type, having endured comparable hardships, and so on.
● It is also important to understand, however, that similarity is not the only characteristic that
can breed empathy.

● From a young age, we train children to spot similarities and highlight differences, but at the
same time we often pretend that differences, specifically those pertaining to facets such as race or
disability, are invisible.

● Many researchers have shown that difference is not invisible, even to very small children,
but in acting as though it is, we as parents and educators accidentally malign the idea of “difference”
in general.

● As Bigler and Liben (2006) have discussed in their research, this may make it less likely for
dissimilar individuals to spend time with one another, even during childhood.

● We would take this one step further and posit that this lack of closeness may in turn
decrease empathy.

● If we can help our children to develop wide and diverse social circles, perhaps we can allow
empathy to develop toward a broader group of people.

● One final approach for promoting empathy involves working with those people who
especially want to see themselves as different from others.

● Uniqueness is something that most people desire to some degree but that, taken to an
extreme, makes it very difficult for the person to make contact and interact with others. Such people
must be taught that they do share characteristics with others and how their illusory specialness
needs may be preventing them from deriving pleasure from interacting with other people. Values-
Based Approaches to Enhancing Altruistic Actions

● Other researchers have looked toward historical accounts of “helpers” such as those who
protested against Nazi ideology and practices or who engaged in the civil rights movement.

Researchers have found some individuals may incorporate helping into their personal identity such
that anything other than altruistic behavior in these types of situations does not feel authentic and
thus isn’t considered a viable behavioral option.

● As such, personal values may affect altruistic behavior.

● Hitlin (2007) found that in individuals who value prosocial acts so strongly that this becomes
a piece of their identity, volunteering becomes an important source of self-esteem.

● Working to engender personal responsibility for acting prosocially may affect the
development of altruism in this way.

● Similarly, we find examples of heroism in prosocial acts. Those people described often as “in
the line of duty,” such as firefighters, ambulance workers, and the police, put themselves in harm’s
way for others on a regular basis.

● Members of the military and war heroes are other examples of this type of prosocial
behavior, of which there are many living in our current times.
● In extreme situations (e.g., war, disaster), it may be that this type of prosocial behavior is in
some ways “required,” due to the values of the context in which these situations occur.

● These types of helping jobs, although they may tend to draw individuals who already value
prosocial behavior to them, at the same time promote further development of prosocial qualities.

● Emulating these real-life heroes may have an effect on the development of altruism as well.

● Franco, Blau, and Zimbardo (2011) believe we can stimulate our “heroic imagination,” which
is “a collection of attitudes about helping others in need, beginning with caring for others in
compassionate ways, but also moving toward a willingness to sacrifice or take risks on behalf of
others or in defense of a moral cause”.

● Maybe anyone has the capacity to act in a heroic way. Helping behavior may be habit
forming.

● Even after taking parental volunteer action into account, Rosen and Sims (2011) found that
those children who volunteered or were involved in some kind of fundraising were 3.1% more likely
to make cash gifts to various organizations as adults.

Interestingly, the effect of having volunteered (donating an average of $329 more per year) is
significantly greater than the effect posed by fundraising alone ($122 greater than those who did not
have these experiences in childhood).

● This same pattern was found with regard to volunteer work as an adult, with individuals who
volunteered or fundraised during childhood as 8.3% and 6%, respectively, more likely to volunteer
their time as adults; this again was found after excluding parental volunteer activity.

● It seems that involving children in altruistic actions when they are young may have
important implications for continuation of this prosocial behavior.

Measuring Altruism

● There are a variety of self-report instruments for assessing the altruism of people from childhood
through adulthood.

● Perhaps the best-known self-report instrument is the SelfReport Altruism Scale, a validated 20-
item index for adults (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981).

● If one desires an observational index, the Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire is a 20-item rating
index that can be used by teachers to report prosocial behaviors (using a 3-point continuum of
applicability ranging from “does not apply” to “applies somewhat” to “definitely applies”).

● Another promising self-report instrument for adults is the Helping Attitude Scale, a 20-item
measure that taps beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to helping.

● The Helping Attitude Scale appears to meet the psychometric criteria for scale reliability and
validity, and initial findings show that women have more positive attitudes about helping than do
men.

● In addition, researchers often use various decision-making games of give-and-take borrowed from
the field of economics to determine if participants in their studies are likely to act in a more
prosocial way or a more egoistic way in various scenarios.
● These scenarios attempt to measure altruism from a more behavioral standpoint.

● The standard Dictator Game, in which a participant is given a number of tokens and told to divide
those tokens between themselves and another person given various circumstances (e.g., the other
person is a member of the same group or another group, the other person holds all the tokens or
the participant holds all the tokens, etc.), is one way in which prosocial behavior is often measured.

● Other games, such as the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism, are very similar to this procedure.
Some note that there are issues with measuring altruism in this way, including interviewer bias and
assumptions made for various behaviors.

Unit 4
FORGIVENESS

Many scholars have put forward many definitions for forgiveness, but there has been a general
consensus that its beneficial for us.

McCullough and Colleagues: forgiveness reflects increases in prosocial motivation toward another
such that there is

(1) less desire to avoid the transgressing person and to harm or seek revenge toward that
individual

(2) increased desire to act positively toward the transgressing person.

Changes in motivation are viewed as being at the core of this theory with the person becoming more
benevolent over time; moreover, forgiveness is seen as applicable only when there is another person
who has engaged in a transgression.

Forgiveness reflects the following:

(1) cognitive-affective transformation following a transgression

(2) the victim makes a realistic assessment of the harm done and acknowledges the perpetrator’s
responsibility

(3) freely chooses to “cancel the debt”, giving up the need for revenge or deserved punishments
and any quest for restitution.

(4) a “cancellation of negative emotion” directly related to the transgression. In particular, in

forgiving, the victim overcomes their feelings of resentment and anger for the act.

(5) essentially removes himself or herself from the victim role.

Cultivating Forgiveness

Forgiving Another Person

Making the decision to forgive another, perhaps particularly when the relationship we have with a
person is very meaningful to us, often requires some perspective taking.
We forgive, let go of negative ruminations about another person or event, in order to feel better
about ourselves.

Forgiveness is the goal, the first step is to promote a non-distorted, realistic appraisal of the
relationship of the two people. The second step is the attempt to facilitate a release from the bond
of ruminative, negative affect held toward the violating (transgressing) partner. Finally, the third step
is to help the victimized partner lessen their desire to punish the transgressing partner.

Over time, forgiveness makes it possible for the hurt and the outpouring of negative feelings to
diminish—especially for the victimized partner.

Other research supports this idea of loosening the hold of the negative memory of a negative
transgression.

Forgiveness parallels the stages of recovery from psychological trauma. Over time, the couple
progresses from the initial impact stage to a search for meaning or understanding of what happened
to them.

Five steps of the acronym REACH:

Recall the hurt and the nature of the injury caused, promote Empathy in both partners, Altruistically
give the gift of forgiveness between partners, Commit verbally to forgive the partner, and Hold onto
the forgiveness for each other.

Forgiving Oneself

A person who feels guilt has a sense of remorse and typically regrets something that they have done.
To correct for such guilt, some sort of reparative action is warranted, such as confessing or
apologizing. The process of helping a person to deal with shame is a more difficult one for the helper
than is the treatment for guilt.

Self-forgiveness has been defined as “a process of releasing resentment toward oneself for a
perceived transgression or wrongdoing”. Consequences of not forgiving oneself can be much more
severe than the consequences of not forgiving another person.

Interventions to lessen counterproductive criticism of the self are aimed at helping the individual
take responsibility for the bad act or actions and then let go so that she or he can move forward with
the tasks in life. In fact, any client who is absorbed in very negative or very positive self-thoughts
feels “caught.”

Process on the road to self-forgiveness:

 Recognition, and it refers to the awareness of the individual that self-forgiveness is justified.

 Responsibility is a basic “owning” of the transgressions the individual feels they have committed.

 Expression is an active emotion-approach stage in which the individual works on expressing the
emotions related to the incident and dialogs about these feelings.

 Re-creating helps individuals create a new self-image that acknowledges the past but looks
toward and informs the future.

Forgiveness of a Situation
People often point to their life circumstances as the causes of their problems (i.e., they blame the
happenings in their lives). For such clients, therefore, a crucial part of their treatment entails
instruction in stopping thoughts about earlier negative life events so that they instead can look
ahead toward their futures.

Measuring Forgiveness

Thompson et al. (2005) developed the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (HFS) as an 18-item trait measure
of forgiveness. There are six items to tap each of the three types of forgiveness —self, other, or
situation—and respondents use a 7-point scale (1 = almost always false of me to 7 = almost always
true of me). Scores on the HFS have correlated positively with scores on other forgiveness measures;
people scoring higher on the HFS also show more flexibility and trust, as well as less hostility,
rumination, and depression.

McCullough et al. (1998) developed the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory

(TRIM) as a 12-item self-report measure (respondents use a 5-point continuum from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with the items tapping either (1) the motive to avoid contact with
the transgressing person or (2) the motive to seek revenge against the transgressor. The TRIM can
be regarded as a transgression-specific index of forgiveness.

Enright has developed two forgiveness measures, the first of which is a 60-item version called the
Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EVI; Subkoviak et al., 1995). The EVI assesses the respondent’s
thoughts about a recent interpersonal transgression.

A second Enright inspired measure is the 16-item Willingness to Forgive Scale (WTF; Hebl & Enright,
1993). The WTF gives a valid estimate of the degree to which a person is willing to use forgiveness as
a problem-solving coping strategy.

Tangney and colleagues (1999) have developed a trait self-report index called the Multidimensional
Forgiveness Inventory (MFI). The MFI entails 16 different scenarios involving transgressions; 72 items
tap these nine subscales: (1) propensity to forgive self, (2) propensity to forgive others, (3)
propensity to ask for forgiveness, (4) propensity to blame self, (5) propensity to blame others, (6)
time to forgive self, (7) time to forgive others, (8) sensitivity to hurt feelings, and (9) anger-
proneness.

Physical Health and Forgiveness

Many researchers have found correlations between forgiveness and well-being, as well as between
forgiveness and physical health.

Those who forgive are said to be less ruminative, are less depressed, and possess less narcissistic
entitlement.

Other research has found that longevity is also associated with practicing forgiveness, as is
satisfaction within relationships and the maintaining of a romantic relationship over time, both of
which might be linked to health as well.

Some research shows that forgiveness might provide somewhat of a buffer against stress over a
transgression and the mental health implications that can follow over the course of a lifetime

Consequences of forgiveness may not always be positive. Therefore, although forgiveness can lead
to great things for many, caution must be taken in looking carefully at the situation before
employing strategies in this area.
Attachment, Love, and Forgiveness: Building a Positive

Attachment early in life provides the fertile field upon which love can grow, and at times forgiveness
is needed as a salve to harsh conditions in a relationship.

Any relationship in which we invest brings both benefits and potential risks. Benefits of love and
attachment usually outweigh the cost that a need for forgiveness might pose from time to time. It is
important to note that some of the research in these areas has not included a broad spectrum of
individuals in terms of cultural background. In our current times, exhibiting love and forgiveness may
heal some of our current woes within our world.

Positive psychology research that focuses on these building blocks of strong relationships

and promotion of caring and empathy across groups may help to set an agenda for the future—an
agenda that will hopefully produce a society that will help all individuals to flourish and live together.

Unit 5
GRATITUDE
The term gratitude is derived from the Latin concept gratia, which entails some variant of grace,
gratefulness, and graciousness (Emmons, McCullough, & Tsang, 2003).

The ideas flowing from this Latin root pertain to “kindness, generousness, gifts, the beauty of giving
and receiving”.

CULTIVATING GRATITUDE

In more recent times, psychologists Robert Emmons and Michael McCullough have explored a
variety of ways to help people enhance their sense of gratitude. These interventions aimed at
enhancing gratitude consistently have resulted in benefits. For example, in comparison to people
who recorded either neutral or negative life stresses in their diaries, those who kept weekly
gratitude journals (i.e., recorded events for which they were thankful) were superior in terms of

(1) the amount of exercise undertaken,

(2) optimism about the upcoming week

(3) feeling better about their lives

(4) Furthermore, those who kept gratitude journals reported greater enthusiasm, alertness, and
determination, and they were significantly more likely to make progress toward important
goals pertaining to their health, interpersonal relationships, and academic performances.
Those who were in the “count your blessings” diary condition also were more likely to have
helped another person.

(5) Finally, in a third study in Emmons and McCullough’s (2003) trilogy, people with
neuromuscular conditions were randomly assigned to either a gratitude condition or a
control condition. Results showed that those in the former condition were

(1) more optimistic,

(2) more energetic,

(3) more connected to other people

(4) more likely to have restful sleep

 In Japan, a form of meditation known as Naikan has been found to enhance a person’s sense
of gratitude (Krech, 2001). Naikan” is a self-reflective form of meditation founded by
Yoshimoto Ishin (1916–1988), who developed it from a lay Shin Buddhist practice called
mishirabe. After Yoshimoto used it to help prisoners in the 1950s, psychiatrists in the 1960s
started to use it as a psychotherapy.

 Using Naikan, one learns to meditate daily on three gratitude-related questions: First, what
did I receive? Second, what did I give? And third, what troubles and difficulties did I cause to
others?

“A hundred times a day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depends on the labors of other
men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the measure as I have received
and am still receiving.”
Albert Einstein

In ‘developed’ societies, we may be rather automatic in our expectations of material comforts;

gratitude meditation helps to bring this process more into awareness so we can learn how to
appreciate such blessings.

The effectiveness of gratitude interventions may be moderated by the level of positive affect in the
lives of participants (Froh, Kashdan, Ozimkowski, & Miller, 2009). Jeffrey Froh and colleagues (2009)
asked a sample of children and adolescents to write a letter of thanks to someone for whom they
were grateful and to then deliver that letter in person. They then compared youth in their study who
were high in positive affect with those who were low in positive affect in terms of the effectiveness
of this gratitude exercise. Results showed that those youth who were low in positive affect were able
to make greater increases in their level of gratefulness and had higher positive affect post
intervention. Thus, gratitude may be even more important to cultivate in individuals who are lower
in regular positive emotional experiences. Similar results were found in a study with adults in which
participants were asked to write gratitude letters once a week for 3 weeks (Toepfer et al., 2012). This
more sustained letter-writing procedure resulted in increases in happiness and life satisfaction and
decreases in depression in a majority population sample.

Measuring Gratitude

One tactic was to ask people to list the things about which they felt grateful. This simple method
allowed researchers to find those events that produced gratefulness. Another strategy was to take
the stories that people wrote about their lives and code these vignettes for gratefulness themes.
Some attempts also have been made to measure gratitude behaviourally. For example, whether
children said “thank you” during their door-to-door Halloween trick-or-treat rounds was used as an
unprompted index of gratitude.

Similarly, the grateful responses of people receiving food in a soup kitchen have been quantified.
Working in the context of an overall index called the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory, Laird and
his colleagues have developed and validated a three-item Thanksgiving self-report subscale on which
people respond along a 7-point response scale (1 = never to 7 = all of the time) to each item. The
three Thanksgiving items are “I offered thanks for specific things,” “I expressed my appreciation for
my circumstances,” and “I thanked God for things occurring in my life.” This Thanksgiving subscale of
the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory obviously is worded in terms of religious prayer, and higher
scores have correlated with stronger religious practices, such as prayer.

Finally, three trait-like self-report measures of gratitude do not inherently link the wording of the
items to religious prayer. The first such measure is the Gratitude, Resentment, and Appreciation Test
(GRAT), a 44-item index developed and validated by Watkins, Grimm, and Hailu (1998). The GRAT
taps the three factors of resentment, simple appreciation, and social appreciation. The second is the
Gratitude Adjective Checklist, and it asks participants to state how well three adjectives (grateful,
appreciative, and thankful) describe them. This scale is often used as a secondary measure of
gratitude in conjunction with some other inventory. The GQ- 6 is a six-item questionnaire (see
Appendix B for the entire scale) on which respondents endorse each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Results show that the six items correlate strongly with
each other, and one overall factor seems to tap the scale content. Scores of the GQ-6 correlate
reliably with peers’ rating of target persons’ gratitude levels; people scoring high on this scale report
feeling more thankful and more grateful. Additionally, this sense of appreciation as tapped by the
GQ-6 endured over a 21-day interval.

Froh and colleagues (2011) assessed the validity of all three of the above adult-normed scales (the
GQ-6, GAC, and the GRAT–short form) for use with children and adolescents. Results showed that
similar relationships were found as with adult research participants on positive affect and life
satisfaction but that age appeared to mediate the relationships with depression and negative affect.
More research is needed here as cultivating and investigating gratitude in younger populations have
many benefits.

The Psychophysiological Underpinnings of Gratitude

 It has been hypothesized that gratitude might affect self-regulatory behaviour such that it
increases patience, but in studies investigating this connection, gratitude was not shown to
increase neural performance in these areas. Research on the neural underpinnings of
gratitude is still currently emerging, and so findings must be interpreted carefully; however,
Fox, Kaplan, Damasio, and Damasio (2015) have uncovered some very interesting findings
while trying to observe brain activity after gratitude has been evoked

 In this study, Fox and colleagues found that activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (thought
to be responsible for emotional regulation and other impulse control) and the medial
prefrontal cortex (often associated with social cognition and decision making) was found
during the experience of gratitude.

 The measured brain activity resembles morality analysis. Fox and colleagues found that
areas of the brain associated with social interactions, bonding, and social rewards were also
activated during experiencing gratitude.

 When receiving a gift or service, gratitude and other emotions overlap, requiring more
study. Fox et al. (2015) advise care.

 Despite these overlaps, these findings are exciting new advances in this field and help us
comprehend gratitude.

 This part will also include some research on appreciation, since physiological and
neurological research is scarce in this area.
 Appreciation does not necessarily involve another person, unlike thanks. We quickly discuss
psychophysiology of appreciation because these two concepts are similar.

 The parasympathetic and sympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system are out of
sync when frustrated, but appreciation creates a more coherent heart rhythm pattern
(McCraty & Childre, 2004). Appreciation also synchronizes alpha brain wave activity from
electroencephalograms (EEGs) and heartbeats.

 McCraty and coworkers (McCraty, 2002; McCraty & Atkinson, 2003) found that left-
hemisphere heartbeat and EEG synchrony was higher under experimental manipulations of
appreciation compared to baseline.

 The lighter shading indicates higher heartbeat-EEG alpha brain wave synchrony. McCraty
and Childre (2004) noted that other research has linked positive feelings to the left
hemisphere. (e.g., Lane et al., 1997).

 Although more study is needed, it is encouraging that the gratitude-related human reaction
of appreciation appears to have a coherent psychophysiological pattern (McCraty's term).