The Effect of Structured Gratitude on Mood

Home , Elevation (emotion)

THE EFFECT OF STRUCTURED GRATITUDE ON MOOD

CELIA DUNN

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to

Dr. Emma Pivato in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

March, 2011

Acknowledgements

For the creation of study I wish to acknowledge the kind assistance and support of Dr. Emma

Pivato of the Centre of Integrated Studies, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta. Inspired by your keen interest in the study of gratitude and mood, I made the decision to explore the subject further. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of the staff of the Centre of Integrated Studies for their administrative support throughout the entire Masters programme.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….. 2

Abstract………..…………………………………………………………………………. 5

Project History…………………………………………………………....…………….. 6

Definition of Terms……………………………….……………….………………….… 7

Gratitude Defined……………………………………………………………….………. 8

Gratitude in History…………………….………………………………………………. 8

Types of Gratitude ……………………………………………………………...………9

Gratitude and Personality…………………………………………………………….. 9

Functional Aspects of Gratitude……………………………………………………..11

Gratitude and Mood...……………………………………………...………………..…12

Project Description……………………..………………………………………………14 General Procedure………..……………………………………..……………15 Independent Variables………………………………….…………..………...15 Dependent Variables…………………………………………… ………..….16 Controlled Variables………………………………………………….………16 Randomization……………………………………………………….……….16

Mood Measurement and Data Recording………………………………………….16

Summary of Results……….…………………………………………………………..18

Comment.……………………….……………………………………………………....22

The Experiment Parts II and IIA……………………………………...…….………..24

Results Parts II and IIA………………………………………………………………..25

Discussion………………………………………………………….……………..…….27

How Structure Affects Mood………………………………………………………...28

Unstructured Gratitude-Giving……………………………………………..……….30

The Use of Breath……………………………………..………………………………30

Unstructured Gratitude and Meditation - Commonalities…………….………..30

Addressing Anomalies…………………………………………………….…………32

Some Conclusions…………….………………………………………….……….….33

Experiments’ Strengths and Limitations……………………………….….……...37

Future Directions…………………………………………………….……………..38

References……………………………………..……….………….…………39

Appendix………………………………………….…………………….…….41

Abstract

This study is a self-experiment (N=1) measuring the effect of structured gratitude on

mood. Intrigued by the effect of an “attitude of gratitude” in my own life, this experiment

investigated how expressions of verbal, written or mental thank-yous affected mood. Controlled

variables were location, room ambiance, time of day and the list of items for which gratitude was

given. Results showed that mental gratitude showed the highest mood elevation narrowly

followed by verbal. Written gratitude consistently showed the lowest levels of mood elevation.

In Part II of the experiment the “winner” of Part I - mental gratitude, was the only independent variable used. Secondly, the gratitude list was abandoned in favor of heartfelt repetitions of

“thank-you” for no specific items or favors. This freeform mental gratitude yielded higher measurements than Part I. Lastly, a breath technique was introduced to freeform mental gratitude. This yielded the highest mood measurements. Part I showed the lowest results.

Gratitude depended directly on levels of heartfeltness. I also experienced “cognitive interference.” This is the retrieval and memory process attached to structured gratitude. In order to give thanks first, we must retrieve from memory items for thanksgiving. Second we must remember who or what did you the favor. Thirdly it must be put in written form. These cognitive processes apparently reduced heartfeltness. Discarding these strictures allowed gratitude to be fully expressed. Introducing breath techniques enhanced heartfulness, and consequently raised gratitude to levels bordering on ecstasy.

Introduction

Twenty years ago, in the early 1990s I experienced an extremely positive outcome to a seemingly negative life experience. Extremely joyful at the outcome I spontaneously and continually gave thanks for months. Little did I know then that this spontaneous, continual heartfelt gratitude would have led to a new-found vibrancy of life. This heightened period of consciousness was reinforced by what appeared to be a joy/gratitude cycle. The more gratitude I expressed the more joyful seemed my existence and vice versa. My thought patterns gradually changed from negative to positive. Energy was boundless and I began exercising regularly – something unheard of until then. The usual aches, pains, colds and sniffles remained at bay for extended periods of time. Persons remarked that I appeared to be not only happier but much younger. Arising from these experiences was a keen interest in humanism and in the spiritual/humanistic values of gratitude, hope, forgiveness and non-judgment. I made a concerted effort to incorporate these values in my life.

Although the exhilaration of that experience lasted a few years, it was eventually replaced by other not-so-joyful experiences. I found myself lapsing into periods where life events were taken for granted and gratitude withheld. Lack of gratitude, for me, translated into loss of joy and consequently, loss of vibrancy and wellbeing. Inspired by the success of that life-altering period, and in an effort to recreate what I have somewhat forgotten, I’m again using this opportunity to experiment with the relationship between gratitude and mood.

Project History

In the spring of 2008 under experimental conditions I chose to perform my first experiment on

gratitude on mood. The goal of that experiment was to observe the effect of variables such as

verbal or written gratitude, room ambiance and physical posture on mood. This was a self-

experiment (N=1). It was a part of course requirements for the Athabasca University Master of

Arts course BEHV 655 – Self-Directed Behavior. Some of the findings were as follows: a) There appeared to be a direct relationship between the action of gratefulness and mood

elevation. Unless hindered by discomfort, mood increased within a few minutes then leveled

off. Increased gratitude did not increase mood after tapering off. (see Graph 1 example). b) Mood elevation directly depended on “heartfeltness” of gratitude. Heartfelt thanksgiving was

generated by genuine gratitude as opposed to the rhetorical. It allowed an immediate and

steep rise in mood. Prior to the experiments, the experimenter recognized that there were

different types of gratitude. Rhetorical gratitude being one. “Heartfelt” gratitude was another

and was always the goal of each session. c) The experiment also measured the effect of gratitude while in certain levels of comfort

represented by lying down, sitting and standing. Standing was uncomfortable. With

discomfort came “resistance” to gratitude-giving. Mood fell briefly. However, with persistent

gratitude, this mood drop is corrected, and mood elevation continued upward. Discomfort

was mitigated through the use of breath. Author discovered “playful breath”, i.e., lightly

playing with the gentle in-breath and using it to make circles, spirals and figure 8s while

expressing gratitude. Use of this breath allowed discomfort to disappear and for new highs to

be achieved in mood. Playful breath had the greatest influence on mood.

Graph 1

Definition of Terms:

Mood – state of mind

Happiness: cheerfulness

Gratitude: the state of being grateful or thankful

Heartfeltness: the expression of gratitude from the heart (and not rhetorically).

Structured gratitude: To impose controls around the practice of gratitude such as listing specific items for which thanks is given.; location; time of day; types of gratitude expressed.

Verbal gratitude: using the spoken word to express gratitude;

Mental gratitude: expressing thanks using the mind;

Written gratitude: using the written word to express thanks.

Gratitude session: a time period exclusively devoted to the expression of gratitude

Gratitude Defined

Gratitude researcher, Tsang (2006) defines it as an emotional reaction to the receipt of a well-

intentioned benefit of another. To McCullough et. al (2008) it is a “pleasant emotion…typically

preceded by the perception that one has benefited from another person’s generosity.” (p.281). In

The Psychology of Gratitude Emmons and McCullough (2004) posit that “…the cornerstone of

gratitude is [based on] the notion of undeserved merit. The grateful person recognizes that he or

she did nothing to deserve the gift or benefit.”(p. 5)

Gratitude has the characteristics of both appreciation and acknowledgment of a gesture

(sometimes unexpected) performed on our behalf. The nature of the gift may not necessarily be

tangible and might represent intent rather than an actual benefit. (Emmons and McCullough,

2004) In Gratitude and Justice, (1998) Fitzgerald describes gratitude as:

• Appreciation and warmth for something or someone;

• Goodwill toward that object or person.

• A compunction to positively interact due to that appreciation..

All definitions of gratitude allude to the fact that it is a positive item that allows us, and

sometimes another to feel good.

Gratitude in History

Gratitude has been celebrated from time immemorial through myriad cultures and eras as a

source of happiness. Wood, Joseph and Linley (2007, p.18) quote Buddha as saying that “A noble person is mindful and thankful of the favors he receives from others.” Cicero, the celebrated Roman statesman and philosopher (43 B.C.) was quoted as saying that “gratitude is

not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others...” (Kelly, 2003, p. 157). Kelly also quotes novelist W. Somerset Maugham as saying that “Gratitude is not a virtue that comes easy to the human race (p.157). This suggests the challenges that humans experience in expressing it. Yet, with all the ancient clues suggesting gratitude’s place in the psychology of wellbeing, it has only been since the year 2,000 that it has garnered serious scientific attention.

This neglect might be explained by the fact that historically, psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy have focused their attention on abnormal mental and emotional conditions. These disciplines have only fairly recently shifted their focus to positive psychology. According to

Fredrickson (2003, p.330) “Although psychology had become proficient at rescuing people from various mental illnesses, it had virtually no scientifically sound tools for helping people to . . . thrive and flourish.” Positive psychology is that of wellness.

Also attempting to explain gratitude's neglect is positive psychologist, Emmons, (2004).

He states that,

In contrast to theologians, philosophers and popular writers, psychologists are relative latecomers to the study of gratitude. Widespread ambiguity and uncertainty about its status as an emotion account for its scant attention. Unlike anger, fear or disgust, gratitude does not qualify as a basic emotion. (p.4)

Gratitude study is therefore an outgrowth of the newly-founded field of Positive Psychology.

This is the scientific study of optimal human functioning [that] aims to discover the factors that allow individuals and communities to thrive. (Akumal Manifesto, 2000).

Types of Gratitude

In describing its qualities, Emmons, (2004) makes a distinction between theistic gratitude and interpersonal gratitude. Theistic- is gratitude directed toward God, a higher power or the

universe. The latter is that directed toward persons from whom a favor has been granted. Apart from the object of gratitude, Emmons makes no effort to define the difference between the two.

This leads one to suspect that difference(s) might be for descriptive purposes only and that gratitude is the same no matter to whom it is directed. Emmons & McCullough (2004) describe another expression of gratitude - transpersonal gratitude. This is:

...the gratitude that one feels when contemplating a starry sky or a majestic mountain peak. Such vast thankfulness Nakhnikian [1961] cannot be directed towards a person or even a supernatural agent and occurs in the absence of a belief that a favor has been intentionally conferred upon a person by a benefactor. (p.5, my emphasis)

Quoting Strang (1989) Emmons and McCullough (2004, p.5) also describe transpersonal gratitude as a state where “…people recognize that they are connected to each other in a mysterious and miraculous way that is not fully determined by physical forces, but is part of a wider...context.” To summarize, gratitude can be as narrowly defined as in Fitzgerald's (1998) definition or as broadly as transpersonal gratitude.

Gratitude and Personality

One reason for gratitude’s neglect say Wood, Joseph, and Linley (2007) is that it resists being neatly classified by modern psychology. Lazarus & Lazarus 1994 classified it as one of the empathetic emotions. Others classify it as an emotion, coping device, personality trait, attitude or a moral virtue. According to Wood, Joseph and Linley (2007) “Gratitude can be conceptualized as an affect, a behavior, or a personality trait. (p.18):

As an affect gratitude has a moral or prosocial purpose that “acts as a moral barometer, drawing attention to help received;” (p.18)

“As a moral motivator, gratitude encourages a prosocial response to help;” (p.18)

Gratitude acts also as a moral reinforcer. Wood, Joseph & Linley conclude that beneficiaries of gratitude are more likely to give help to those from whom they have received assistance.

Regarding gratitude as a behavioral trait, research suggests that gratitude occurs both as a function of culture and of the amount of imposition on the benefactor.(p. 18) More recent studies characterize gratitude as an aspect of personality that some experience with greater intensity, frequency and over a broader range of experiences than others. (McCullough, Emmons, &

Tsang, 2002).

Functional Aspects of Gratitude

In a research paper presented in 2003, Grant summarizes how gratitude functions. Firstly gratitude appears to be a moral affect, categorized with emotions such as empathy, sympathy, guilt and shame (McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, & Larson, 2001). All these emotions:

“…operate when people have the opportunity to respond to the plight of another person, and guilt and shame operate when people have not met moral standards of obligations,” whereas “gratitude operates typically when people are the recipients of prosocial behavior”(p. 12 cited from McCullough et al, 2001, p. 252).

In addition to being a moral affect, Grant further proposes that it functions in these ways: a) “…as a ‘moral barometer’ by which a person comes to acknowledge that they have been benefited by the good deed of another.” (p.13) (citing McCullough, et al, 2001).

b) “… as a “moral motivator” that prompts the recipient of prosocial behavior to reciprocate the behavior and/or to spread good deeds to others in need.” (citing McCullough et al, 2001;). c) As an inhibiting agents of socially destructive behavior (citing McCullough, et al, 2001). d) As a “moral reinforcer” since it rewards those who engage in prosocial behavior and, so doing, increases the probability of their prosocial behavior in the future” (p.14)

It is then apparent that gratitude serves multifunctional purposes in the realm of human behavior and can be harnessed and used toward healing many dysfunctions in social behavior.

Gratitude and Mood

The direct relationship between gratitude and mood elevation has been explored in a number of experiments. Researcher Robert A. Emmons (2007) in his book 'thanks!' describes research with three experimental groups over a 10-week period (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). To establish a baseline, participants kept daily journals to chronicle their moods, physical health and general attitudes towards life. These were to be used as a comparison for after the experimental intervention:

Group 1 was required to record five instances in the week prior, for which they were grateful. This was called the gratitude condition.

Group 2 was required to record five hassles per diem from the previous week. This was known as the hassles condition.

Group 3 was required to list any five events occurring in the previous week. These were neither positive nor negative, and were the researchers’ control condition.

Results show that participants in the gratitude condition, i.e., those who recorded incidents for which they were grateful, felt 25% happier. Not only did they feel more optimistic about the future and about their lives but higher levels of alertness, enthusiasm, determination, and energy. They were less depressed, more likely to be helpful, and even exercised more regularly and made greater progress toward personal goals. These findings are supported by others, although their reported increase in happiness (25%) was not duplicated. By comparison,

Seligman et. al (2005) in a somewhat similar experiment asked participants to send a letter of

correspondence to someone who had greatly helped them. Findings were that participant’s

happiness scores rose by 10% on average.

A major departure from the tradition of always finding a positive correlation was

Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade (2005). There they attempted to replicate the experiment of

Emmons & McCullough, (2003, see above, p.10). Emmons & McCullough found only positive correlations. The findings of Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade were different.

Significant mood increase occurred only when the experiment was confined to one

(major) act of gratitude per week as opposed to daily (smaller) acts. Daily, smaller acts of gratitude showed no significant increase in mood. Their explanation was that “…counting their blessings several times a week led people to become bored… finding it less fresh and meaningful over time.” (p.126). Their findings signified a major difference from the results found in

Emmons & McCullough, (2003) and from others who have attempted to duplicate the (2003) experiment.

Notwithstanding this seeming anomaly, in another experiment on gratitude Watkins et al., (2003) had four groups test a number of different gratitude exercises. “In this study we… sought to investigate whether grateful reflections can enhance positive affect. We were also interested in whether the nature of grateful experience/expression affects the extent of positive affect experienced.”(p.11) The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) was their primary dependent variable. It was administered before and after treatment to evaluate affect changes over the course of the experiment. The GRAT (Gratitude, Resentment and Appreciation

Test) was also administered. In addition 8 bipolar affect scales were administerd. Groups were

assigned to do the following:

Group 1: Describe details of their living room (Control group N=38).

Group 2: Think about a living person to whom they were grateful (N=39);

Group 3: Write an essay for five minutes about someone to whom they were grateful (N=37);

Group 4: Write a letter to someone to whom they were grateful (N=42).

Group 4 was told that the letter would be mailed to the person to whom it was addressed. This group was also told that they would receive a call from the experimenters to see how well the letter was received. However the letters were returned to the participants after the completion of the experiment for them to do whatever they wanted.

Following the experimental manipulation all participants were again administered the affect

scales, followed by the PANAS, BDI, (Beck Depression Inventory) SDFMS (Semantic Differential

Feeling and Mood Scale), and concluding with the GRAT. To conclude all the interventions

(except the control) caused enhanced mood. “We have found that grateful individuals tend to be

happy individuals, and that grateful thinking improves mood.” (p.21)

My own self experiment will add its own findings to the body of knowledge called the

relationship between gratitude and mood.

Project Description

Experimental Design:

a) The project is a self-experiment (N=1)

b) Originally an ABA experiment, the design was altered seven weeks into the experiment and

the final design was ABAB:

Weeks 1 - 2 (A) – Project Baseline: Twice daily, on rising in the morning and prior to retiring

to bed at night, using a Likert mood scale and Form A (below) the researcher sat quietly at her

desk and recorded her self-reported mood.

Weeks 3 – 5 (B) – Experimentation: Three weeks of experimentation occured. The researcher

experimented with the effect of verbal, mental and written gratitude on mood.

Weeks 6 – 7 (A) Post-Experimental Baseline: For a week-and-a-half immediately following the intervention a post-experimental baseline was established. The experiment should have ended here, but the researcher was dissatisfied with the lackluster results.

Weeks 7- 8 (B) Experimentation – Part II: The researcher experimented further for 5 days

with the method that produced the highest levels of mood measurement - mental gratitude. Five

days (10 sessions) were used instead of 7 because a trend was quickly established and there

seemed to be no need for further experimentation.

Weeks 8 – 9 Experimentation - Part IIA: The researcher reexamines the effect of breath on

mental gratitude.

General Procedure

Sitting comfortably at a desk 2 times per day – on arising in the morning and prior to bedtime - I

express gratitude. For 1 week each, gratitude was expressed continuously for 5 minutes in

written, verbal and mental forms. Using the Likert scale (see p.15) mood was recorded as soon as

I was settled. At 1-minute intervals it was recorded on a Mood Measurement Daily Record Sheet

(see Appendix). Treatment lasted 5 minutes.

Independent Variables

The independent variables were written, verbal and mental “thanks-yous”. These were directed

to specific persons for specific items/circumstances of gratitude.

a) Written Gratitude: A “thank you” list is written to 5 specific persons/items. b) Verbal Gratitude: A verbal “thank you” list is spoken re 5 specific persons/items. c) Mental Gratitude: A “thank you” list is repeated mentally re 5 specific persons/items.

NB. For consistency’s sake the items/persons on the lists are all the same.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was self-reported mood as measured by Likert-type scale described below. Mood was recorded at the beginning and end of each session.

Controlled Variables a) Gratitude items/persons were identical whether acknowledged in writing, verbally or mentally. b) Location remained the same – at a desk, sitting comfortably in my bedroom. c) Time(s) of day are morning (on arising) and night (immediately before going to sleep). d) Length of session (5 min.)

Randomization

In deciding the weekly sequence of treatments, random assignments of written, verbal and mental were made. Part II of the experiment was selectively based on the results of Part I.

Mood Measurement & Data Recording

Scale A - Mood Measurement Instrument

-5__-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4___+5

Scale A is a Likert-type 11-point rating scale that measures personal mood prior to, and

subsequent to gratitude sessions:

-5 Despair

-4 Profound unhappiness;

-3 Severe unhappiness;

-2 Moderate unhappiness;

-1 Mild unhappiness;

0 Base point, neutral;

+1 Mild happiness;

+2 Moderate happiness;

+3 Extraordinary happiness;

+4 Profound happiness

+5 Ecstasy

Data were tracked by daily record sheet (see Appendix) and was recorded prior to and immediately after the session.

Table 1. - Modifications to the Experiment

Original Objectives Actual Practice

1. To have a 14-day Because of an erratic start baseline was extended by 3 days to 17 days initial baseline period so assure that mood was relatively stable.

2. To experiment with Because of highly consistent results this period was shortened from 4 gratitude and mood for weeks to 3. 4 weeks after baseline

3. Post-experiment Because readings showed stability, this period was reduced to 10 days. baseline of 14 days.

4. Experiment ends Experiment was extended twice: after 2nd baseline. Firstly, Mental gratitude (the “winner”) was chosen for 7 days of further experimentation, but reduced to 5 because of consistent results. Some of the “structure” (for details see Part II) was abandoned in favor of a generic form of thanksgiving.

Secondly, for 7 more days “playful” breath was introduced to the experience of unstructured mental thanksgiving.

Initial Baseline Results Raw data in the form of tables and graphs for the entire experiment are

posted in the Appendix.

Summary of Results

1) Part I of the experiment lasted 48 days. There were 96 morning and night sessions in total.

Baseline results showed mood at mildly happy (mode = +1) for morning and night combined

(see Graph 2). Averages showed morning mood (0.5) averaging slightly lower than mood at night (0.7). (See Table 2, Summary of Experiment. Part 1 in Appendix)

Graph 2. - Mood Pre-Experiment Baseline

2) In all treatments mood was elevated; however mental gratitude had highest ratings.

Verbal was next and written gratitude showed the lowest after-treatment scores.

3) Time of day appeared to have no significant difference on treatment outcomes (eg., morning treatments – verbal averaged 1.7, while night treatments were 1.8.

4) Start mood seemed to be independent of the outcome. Low mood at the start of treatment did not necessarily mean lower mood after treatment. For example on Day 25 both morning and night treatments started at mild unhappiness. The final outcomes were almost the same - high-moderate/moderate happiness. Other treatments that started higher had similar outcomes. Type of treatment, whether verbal, mental or written, influenced mood elevation more.

Starting mood didn’t. However there was one exception. This exception was Day 38P.

(written gratitude – Graph 5). Initial mood was high (+2; moderate happiness) and treatment had no effect. Mood remained the same. Although too early to tell, it could be postulated that if mood is already high, some treatments might not be effective.

5) The intervention appeared not to have a lasting effect. Post-experiment baselines reverted to pre-experimental levels of mildly happy (see Graph 6, Appendix). Another interpretation could be that for mood to remain elevated, it must be nourished continuously with gratitude during the entire day and not just at specific times of the day.

6) Recognizing that the simple before/after records did not convey the complete treatment experience, mood was also tracked intrasessionally, minute-by-minute, (see Graph 7, Appendix).

There was usually a small but perceptible dip in mood lasting for a number of seconds. This represented the amount of mental effort expended to retrieve the names and items for which thanks was given. However by the end of the first minute, my mood would:

a. elevate exponentially;

b. reach optimum measurement by the end of the first minute;

c. maintain a flat line at the optimum mood for the remainder of the treatment .

The effects of the initial effort I will discuss later. However, this trajectory is reminiscent of my eating a meal. When I consume food I experience increased pleasure until the appetite is satisfied. Appetite flat-lines then tapers off. This suggests that, like food and appetite, my body:

a) has a rapid capacity for mood elevation and

b) has a mood ceiling for any single type of treatment.

c) has to eat continually to repeat the enjoyment of food.

7) Notwithstanding the typical experience illustrated by Graph 7, (Appendix) written gratitude was different. Minute 1 showed a perceptible depression in mood mild unhappiness.

Whereas before (mental and verbal) gratitude the mood dip lasted a number of seconds, and was only slightly perceptible. With written gratitude at Minute 1 the dip was still perceptible. This

dip was discomfort and was experienced as “resistance” to thanksgiving (see Graph 8, p. 20).

Continued gratitude alleviated the discomfort and mood was elevated above base level.

Comment

It is here that the experiment should have ended. As stated in the introduction, years ago I

discovered the joy of gratitude. The purpose of this experiment was to revisit the subject and

recapture its exhilaration through the discipline of daily practice. I was disappointed with the

lackluster results since I failed to recapture the ecstatic mood attained years ago. After the

experiment ended, I decided to conduct a second experiment – Part II. This new experiment

would recapture most of the conditions which long ago allowed me to feel alive. At that time gratitude was generic:

a) given spontaneously – there were no fixed times or places;

b) directed to no one in particular/everyone;

c) given for non-specific items/everything;

d) “sessions” had no time limit.

Recognizing that there had to be at least some structure, the new experiment – Part II was

configured using b, c, and d above. (See Part II for more information).

The Experiment Parts II & IIA

Part II of the experiment experimented with mental gratitude only. It was chosen because it showed the highest mood readings in Part I. I made the assumption that as the “winner” this method of thanksgiving was best suited for me. As indicated before, some of the structure on which the first experiment was built was eliminated by:

a) dispensing of the itemized thank-you lists in favor of no particular lists/items;

b) expressing heartfelt “thank- yous” mentally without preconditions and

c) directing it generically to everyone/everything/no one in particular.

N.B., The dismantling of structure represents the gratitude that I practice outside of experimental conditions. However my usual practice is not confined by either time of day or location.

Table 3. - Changes to Experiment, Part I

Pt. I – Structured Pt. II - Unstructured Pt. IIA -Unstructured Gratitude Mental Gratitude Mental Gratitude with Breath Independent Written, verbal and Generic mental Same as Expt. II Variables: mental “thank-yous”. “thank-yous” only.

Dependent Self-reported mood Self-reported mood Same as Expt. II Variable:

Controlled Specific items of Unspecified non- Variables gratitude directed to itemized gratitude specific persons directed to the unspecified. Same as Expt. II Location; Times of Location, Times of day & Session length day & Session length remain unchanged.

Breath not a variable Breath not a variable. “Playful-breath” introduced as a controlled variable.

Results - Parts II &IIA

1) Mood measurements for unstructured/freeform mental gratitude averaged +3, or extraordinary

happiness. With breath, the average rose to +3.5. However averages don’t tell the full story of the

experience of the application of breath (See Graph 10).

2) The highest experimental measurements came by applying playful breath to freeform/

unstructured mental gratitude. (see Graph 10). Discovered in the original experiment of 2008,

and described in the essay’s introduction, its addition at times catapulted mood to levels of

ecstasy (+5). There, very profound happiness was experienced.

3) Whereas previously every gratitude treatment yielded higher mood outcomes, the introduction of playful breath changed the expected outcomes in many different ways:

Firstly, Only 30% of “playful breath” treatments (5/14) achieved ecstasy (+5). (See

Graph 10). Compared, 93% of written gratitude treatments had outcomes ranging between +1.3

and +1.5 (elevated mild-happiness). The same percent of verbal gratitude treatments (93%) had

outcomes ranging between +1.5 and +2 (mild-moderate happiness).

Secondly, whenever ecstasy was achieved, the subsequent baseline consistently fell to +2

(moderate happiness) but no lower. Normally, mood returns to baseline of 0 or +1.

Thirdly, ecstasy (+5) seems to be achieved only when starting mood was low - baseline or

possibly lower. In all instances where ecstasy was achieved, mood started at normal base levels

(+1) but no higher. In fact;

Fourthly, when start mood was enhanced (+2, moderate happiness) I found it more

difficult to “top-up” than if start mood were lower. Not only was it more difficult, but when

initial mood was +2 or more, treatment outcomes typically ranged between +3 and +4. However,

when initial mood was +2 or more I never achieved ecstasy (+5). These results seem counterintuitive. Logic dictates that it should be easier to elevate moderate happiness (+2) than mild happiness (+1). However, results show otherwise. This could possibly be similar to Day

38P – written gratitude anomaly where mood resisted being elevated even after treatment.

4) Another surprising outcome from the unstructured/freeform mental/playful-breath sessions

(ie., nights 55, 56, 57 and 59) had nothing to do with mood and everything to do with sleep. The sessions that bordered on ecstasy left me with such exhilaration and heightened awareness that falling asleep was delayed sometimes for an hour, sometimes two. It can therefore be concluded that (at least in my example) this type of gratitude experience is also a “refresher” of sorts.

Discussion

Regarding Part I of the experiment, written gratitude had the least effect on mood. Although surprising to some, this outcome is not unusual. Watkins et. al (2003) used a number of affect scales to measure before and after gratitude treatments – treatments that included “grateful thinking” and writing a gratitude letter which they expected would be mailed. Findings showed:

“…somewhat surprisingly, the grateful thinking condition showed the strongest effect. We expected the letter-writing condition to show the strongest effect because in this condition our participants were engaging in a social expression of gratitude. (p.448)

Regarding why the gratitude letter had a lower effect than “grateful thinking” my theory speaks to how the experiment is configured:

a) its form, (written gratitude) and (b) its structural components.

How Structure Affects Gratitude

It is nature of scientific experiments to impose structure. The scientific method is built on a set of

rules. When followed they verify or disprove the theory at hand. In this experiment, structure included written gratitude, session length and time of day. Specific gratitude items/persons were included in the structure. Structure gives coherence to what might be otherwise

incomprehensible. However, my experience has shown that some things resist “manipulation” by

science. Doing so without interferes with their “essence”. Gratitude, I believe is one.

By asking the participants to perform written gratitude the researchers thought they were

studying gratitude alone or gratitude itself. In my opinion they were not. They were in fact

observing more than gratitude itself because written gratitude (as its name suggests) has at least

two elements – gratitude and writing. Under experimental conditions written gratitude requires:

a) memory retrieval of incidents of gratitude;

b) memory retrieval of persons involved;

c) formal inscribing/coding what was retrieved.

All elements involved cognitive processing. Having to remember and write acts of kindnesses

while giving thanks could represent cognitive/mental interference. The exercise of recall involves

active thought – a function of the left brain. For the experiment:

Firstly, I had to remember not just one incident but five.

Secondly, I had to convert these mental memories into the written word.

The written word is different from the ideographs of my memory. To write I must convert my

ideographs not merely to words, but to words that have a particular format – one that follows the

rules of the English language. In addition, the written word is much more formal than my spoken

word. Therefore my written word is far removed the ideographs representing my thoughts

recalling gratitude situations. Hence, translating gratitude ideographs into the formal written

gratitude represents the various cognitive/mental processes/tasks that my mind goes through.

The processes/tasks of the brain meant discomfort or resistance leading to a “dip” in

mood (see Graph 8, Appendix). Therefore, it is entirely possible that what I measured wasn’t

gratitude itself but the effect of the cognitive/mental process/tasks on it. This could explain why

both structured verbal/mental gratitude score higher than written – less to process; less to write.

The cognitive interference theory could also explain the marked difference between structured

and unstructured gratitude. As a corollary to this, it is my theory that the scientific demands of

structure interferes with gratitude’s “essence” and suppresses it. This could be one reason why

written gratitude scored the lowest.

Watkins’ results with regard to written gratitude are also supported by Lyubomirsky,

Sheldon, & Schkade (2004, unpublished) albeit from a different perspective. Drawing on the

findings of the Emmons and McCullough (2003) study, Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade

performed a six-week intervention students were asked to write ‘“the things for which they are

grateful” either once a week or three times a week. Results showed that:

students who regularly expressed gratitude showed increases in wellbeing over the course of the study relative to controls, but these increases were observed only among students who performed the activity just once a week Perhaps counting their blessings several times a week led people to become bored with the practice,ﬁnding it less fresh and meaningful over time. (p.126)

Although Froh (2008) termed this lowered propensity for gratitude giving “gratitude fatigue,” I

believe it should have been more appropriately called “cognitive/mental fatigue” as previously explained.

Unstructured Gratitude-Giving

My unstructured/freeform experience yielded highly enhanced results when released from some confines of the experiment. Sitting in a relaxed position without requirements of a thank-you list:

a) Gratitude was expressed in mental repetitions of heartfelt “thank yous.” It was directed

to no one/everyone, for everything and/or nothing in particular.

b) There were neither limits nor parameters required.

c) I didn’t need to benefit from any specific favor. Gratitude was universal.

Released from the cognitive/mental tasks of finding specific items/persons for which/to whom to give thanks, I could focus on gratitude itself.

The Use of Breath

To unstructured mental gratitude I applied “playful breath.” This is a gently savored, playful breath discovered in the original experiment of 2008. Combined, they leads to profound

“heartfeltness”, gratitude, relaxation. Joy now borders on the edge of ecstasy.

The gratitude/mood experience appears to have all the characteristics of a positive feedback loop. Thankfulness raises mood which in turn prompts me to express more gratitude and so on. I have been unable to find information on this subject therefore I am unsure whether or not this feedback loop is unique experience or universal.

Unstructured Gratitude & Meditation - Commonalities

Reflecting on the effectiveness of mental gratitude/playful breath, a flash of insight revealed the similarities between this and certain forms of Eastern meditation techniques. Benson

(1977) in The Relaxation Response describes four basic elements of meditation as:

a) A quiet environment (eg. a quiet room);

b) An object on which to dwell. “This object may be a word or sound repetition…For

example directing attention to the repetition of a syllable will help clear the mind…”

c) A passive attitude…an “emptying of all thoughts and distractions from the mind.” (p.86);

(This, Benson considers to be the most important element in eliciting a relaxation

response.)

d) A comfortable position.

Three of the above are common elements in my freeform gratitude practice. However, I am not

conscious that I have a passive attitude.

Bogart (1991) quoting Goleman(7) divides Eastern meditation into two categories

namely, methods of concentration and insight techniques. Of the former Bogart says:

Concentrative meditation fixes the mind on a single object such as the breath or a mantra. …This kind of meditation is prescribed in the Yoga Sutras…and Buddhism…and… popularized in the form of "Transcendental Meditation"(TM). Concentration practices suppress ordinary mental functioning…and induces states of…tranquility and bliss.

The freeform gratitude experiment fixed my mind on both the breath and the mantra and has similarities with Theravada (Thai) meditation, but not exclusively so. Of this (Thervada meditation) clinical psychologist Jack Kornfield (1977) posits “…very often mantra practice is combined with breathing meditation so that one recites a mantra simultaneously with in-breath and out-breath to help develop tranquility and concentration.” (p.311)

The generic, freeform mental, heartfelt “thank-yous” repeated throughout the session -

had all the characteristics of a mantra. Combined with the use of “playful breath” it had the

markings of some Buddhist meditation techniques. In fact research has recorded instances of

similar results. Bono & McCullough (2006) in a rather insightful essay on the benefits of positive psychological interventions say: “…meditation can promote gratitude as a quality of

mindfulness ([citing] Shapiro, Schwartz, & Santerre, 2002). Progressive muscle relaxation can

help produce increased feelings of love and thankfulness ([citing] Khasky & Smith, 1999). Bono

& McCullough (2006) also speak of particular type of psychotherapy originating in Japan, known as Naikan therapy. This form of psychotherapy…

…combines all of the…techniques [gratitude, muscle relaxation and imagining forgiveness] thereby expanding clients’ awareness of their moral relationships with others and aims to induce in clients a strong sense of gratitude to people who have provided them with benefits.

This enhanced experience engendered by releasing structure suggests to me that it is possible that there are some things that cannot be effectively measured by science. There is probably a limit to what science can measure and that not everything can be measured according to its parameters without compromising the experiment. Is it possible that the ephemeral nature of “essences” such as gratitude resist structure? If imposing structure around the “ephemeral” causes what is being measured to essentially “evaporate,” can science be used to measure or study it? This is food for thought.

Addressing Anomalies

With regard to experimental anomalies –

a) Day 28 where written gratitude measuring +2, moderate happiness, failed to be

enhanced during treatment;

b) The relative failure to replicate ecstatic (+5) moods for most playful breaths/freeform

sessions seemed “out of character” since all forms of the experiment (excepting breath)

tend to have similar outcomes. My theory is this: If start mood is at baseline it is much

easier to get momentum going. This momentum propels mood to ecstasy. If start mood is

relatively high (+2) it’s harder to gain the momentum that propels it toward ecstasy. This

issue will be explained in more detail later in this paper.

Again I use the analogy of food. If I am partially satisfied with my meal, eating more, although satisfying will not produce as great a feeling of enjoyment as if I were hungry. The hungrier I am, the greater the enjoyment. Mood measurements below +1 (possibly my personal threshold) are my hunger equivalents. Enjoyment is much more enhanced if I eat when hungry rather than when partially satisfied. This could explain both scenarios above.

Some Conclusions

Firstly, there is evidence of a direct relationship between gratitude and mood; the greater the gratitude, the higher the mood. This result was consistent whether or not there was structure in place or not. This direct relationship is also supported by a plethora of literature previously cited.

Secondly, in any given session, mood increased within the first two minutes then leveled off. Increased gratitude did not increase mood after leveling off. This suggests that there is a ceiling to the mood experienced. However, a goal of this experiment was to measure the effect of structured gratitude on mood. Mental gratitude showed the highest levels in the structured experiment, followed by verbal and written gratitude. Part II of the experiment concluded that in its unstructured form, mental gratitude combined with playful breath achieved the highest mood ratings of all. This was followed by mental gratitude (unstructured). Overall, the order from highest to lowest was:

a) Mental, unstructured with breath;

b) Mental, unstructured;

c) Mental, structured;

d) Verbal, structured;

e) Written, structured.

Third, all treatments suggested that gratitude had only a temporary effect on mood.

Within 8 – 12 hours when mood was next measured, start levels were back to baseline. For mood to remain elevated, gratitude must be applied continually and not merely at specific times. In fact, an attitude of gratitude would need to be cultivated. Exceptions to the 8 – 12 hr rule were inevitably sessions where ecstasy was the outcome. Instead of defaulting to baseline values, within 8 – 12 hours ecstasy waned to moderate happiness. This difference could have implications for gratitude interventions in the future. Methods that sustain higher mood levels for longer periods of time have greater beneficial effects, in general.

Fourth, initially it was surmised that gratitude outcomes all had signature mood ceilings.

That is, results were dependent on type of treatment. However this conclusion is not entirely correct. The two experimental anomalies named previously provide evidence. Firstly, written gratitude with a starting mood of +2 showed no detectible mood increase after treatment. With breath, mood outcomes ranged wildly from +3 to +5. Breath outcomes were unpredictable. Other treatments were more reliable. However within breath’s erratic nature there was coherence.

When start mood was above normal, not even playful breath could propel mood to levels of ecstasy. However, when start mood was normal, breath treatments did propel mood to ecstasy.

This suggests that results are treatment-dependent only when start mood is at, or below normal baseline levels. This is applicable to both structured and unstructured treatments.

Fifth, there is an uncanny similarity between freeform mental gratitude and forms of

Eastern meditation. The repetitive “thank-you” is akin to a mantra. When playful breath is applied to the “mantra” the outcome sometimes is ecstasy. Ecstasy is often an outcome of

Eastern meditation. The thought that comes to mind is “many paths lead to the same

destination.” Gratitude is but one.

Sixth, gratitude and mood appear to have a cyclical relationship: the greater the gratitude

expressed, the higher the mood and vice versa. Mood however has an upper ceiling. This is a

saturation point above which the body refuses to go unless a new element is introduced. That new element was playful breath. It influenced the gratitude/mood cycle by increasing

“heartfeltness” and consequently, mood.

Seventh: It was heartfeltness that opened my heart to the experience of happiness. It appeared to be the determining factor in my mood elevation. As scientists we measure the effectiveness of the experiment by comparing externals, for example types of gratitude. We pit written gratitude, against mental and mental against verbal. These are merely outward expressions of what it is expressed from within. In the end it is not about written, mental or verbal gratitude but about heartfeltness of gratitude. Heartfulness excites my passion. It also is the seat of profound compassion. Where hearfeltness fails to exist so does gratitude. Written gratitude failed most in this experiment because it best reduced the cultivation of “heartfeltness.”

The cognitive interference attached to written gratitude reduced heartfeltness and consequently mood elevation.

Eighth, the discovery that lower start mood seemed to facilitate higher mood outcomes seemed to be supported in the literature. McCullough, Tsang & Emmons (2004) study of daily gratitude giving found evidence that “…correlations [between gratitude and mood] were strongest for people with relatively weak dispositions toward gratitude.” (p.303). This seems to support my “appetite” theory. Like hunger, when gratitude is fed to those who are “gratitude- deprived” the results become significantly higher than those who are not deprived.

Ninth, surprisingly, it was the relative lack of structure – freeform mental gratitude - that liberated gratitude and allowed it to reach higher readings of extraordinary happiness (+3).

Applying breath to a liberated gratitude allowed measurements bordering on ecstasy. So although the original experiment was framed around structure, it proved the opposite – that lack of structure had greatest effect on mood. Structure seems to have a direct relationship with cognitive/mental processing such as memory retrieval and expressing language in writing. The written word is bound by a different set of rules from the spoken word. Rules of syntax, spelling and formality of expression are a few. Therefore, one has to think more before expressing something in writing. In Part I cognitive processes interfered with expressing gratitude. Because verbal and mental gratitude have less cognitive processing they scored higher.

There is not much literature on the effect of cognitive/mental processing on gratitude but at least one study (Watkins et al, 2003) suggests that written gratitude produces lowered results when compared with mental gratitude. The cognitive/mental factor could be explored in further experimentation since it suggests that there might be limits to the benefits of gratitude using these experimental structures. In my literature search for this paper, by far, the greatest number of gratitude interventions reviewed used the written form.

Finally, we acknowledge the role of breath in this experiment. Facilitating the experience of “heartfeltness,” breath transported mood beyond the ordinary and into realms of ecstasy.

Taken for granted in ordinary life, it appears to be a grand assistant on the journey toward wholeness and wellbeing. Manipulated, played-with and gently savored, breath adds joy, exhilaration and ecstasy to the outpourings of the heart – heartfeltness. Eastern religions have long included breath in their meditative practices and breath is nature’s great relaxant.

Experiments’ Strengths & Limitations

These were single-subject/self-experiments. Experiments of this type tend to have issues of

reliability, validity and generalizability. Therefore they are my experiences only and should not

be extrapolated or generalized without due caution. Merriam (2009) citing Hamel (1993, p. 23)

observes, [that these studies are] “faulted for lack of representativeness...and lack of rigor in the

collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical materials. This lack of rigor is linked to the

problem of bias...introduced by the subjectivity of the researcher and others involved. (p.52)

With regard to this self-experiment, I must admit that there could have been researcher bias.

Firstly my usual gratitude practice happens to be freeform mental gratitude (without

breath). I have a lot of experience practicing it and little experience with written gratitude. I have

never kept a gratitude journal, so except for thank you notes, I’m unused to expressing it in the

written form. However my personal bias does not explain why structured mental gratitude was favored over structured written. I do not practice structured mental gratitude. Neither does it explain how others such as Watkins et. al. (2003) have concluded that written gratitude is less effective than mental gratitude.

Secondly, it can also be argued that having been biased toward freeform gratitude the imposition of structure could have allowed me to express my bias against it (structure). That argument could also be true, but it does not make the results any less valid since my experience is my experience. Like everyone, including scientists I bring my history and unacknowledged biases with me. However, my biases don’t account for the fact that the highest readings occurred not with freeform mental gratitude but with the addition of breath – something not practiced since I discovered it 3 years ago.

That having been said, it must be noted that according to Merriam (2009) detractions

regarding lack of representativeness etc., miss the point of this type of research. Shields (2007),

as quoted by Merriam, argues the merit of studies of this genre:

a) These experiments already account for methodological and most importantly, human

difference.

b) They don’t attempt to eliminate what cannot be discounted; neither do they attempt to simplify what cannot be simplified.

c) They can provide extraordinarily detailed information on the both the experiment and

the experimenter. This type of information might not be revealed using other methods. This information is appropriate where unique or interesting stories might be told. Single subject/self- experimentation can provide context to data and offer a more complete picture. It is “because these studies include paradoxes and acknowledge that there are no simple answers, that [they- single-subject experiments] can and should qualify as the gold standard” (Merriam, 2009)

Future Directions

Future studies in gratitude might be directed towards examining the following.

a) The effect of breath on gratitude sessions, particularly studies regarding “playful breath”.

b) The differences between generic thanksgiving vs. specific thanksgiving.

c) The phenomenon of resistance to gratitude and the effect of cognitive processes on it.

d) The mood/gratitude relationship and its similarities to the appetite/food relationship.

e) The nature of “heartfelt” gratitude as opposed to rhetorical gratitude.

f) The gratitude/mood experience as a positive feedback loop.

g) The effect of scientific experimentation on gratitude’s “essence”.

References

Bogart, G., (1991) Meditation and psychotherapy: A review of the literature The American Journal of Psychotherapy, volume 45 number 3, 1991, pp. 383-412

Bono, G. & McCullough, M. E., (2006) Positive responses to benefit and harm: Bringing forgiveness and gratitude into cognitive psychotherapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Volume 20, Number 2 • 2006

Emmons, R.A. (2004). The psychology of gratitude: An introduction. In R.A. Emmons & McCullough, M.E. (Eds.) The psychology of gratitude (pp. 3-16) New York: Oxford University Press. .

Emmons, R.A. (2007). Thanks! How the new science of gratitude can make you happier. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, p.377–389

Emmons, R. A., and Shelton, C. A.,(2005) Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In Snyder, C. R., and Lopez, S. J., (eds) Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fredrickson, Barbara (2003) The value of positive emotions American Scientist, vol. 91 p. 330 – 335

Froh, J. J., Kashdan, T. B., Ozimkowski, K. M., & Miller, N.(2009) Who benefits the most from a gratitude intervention in children and adolescents? Examining positive affect as a moderator The Journal of Positive Psychology, Volume: 4, Issue: 5, Publisher: Taylor & Francis, Pages: 408-422

Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being, 213-233. Journal of School Psychology, 46

Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J. J., (2009) Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in Psychological Needs - Journal of Personality 77:3,

Kelly, Bob (2003) “Worth repeating: More than 5000 classic and contemporary quotes” Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI.

Kornfield, J. Living Buddhist Masters. Unity Press, Santa Cruz, CA, 1977.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005b). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131

Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Pursuing sustained happiness through random acts of kindness and counting one's blessings: Tests of two six-week interventions. Unpublished data, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside.

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R.A., & Tsang, J. (2002).The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, p.112-127.

Merriam, S. B., (2009) Qualitative Case Study Research in the book Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation Revised and Expanded from Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. John Wiley & Sons Inc. San Francisco, CA

Robbins, B. D., Joy, awe, gratitude and compassion: Common ground in a will-to-openness; Essay presented at a conference entitled Works of Love: Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Altruism, May 31-June 5, 2003, Retrieved Dec. 10, 2010 from http://www .journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030003c.html

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen,T.A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421

Watkins, P. C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., Kolts, R. L. (2003) Gratitude and happiness: Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-being Social Behavior and Personality, Palmerston North: Vol. 31, Iss. 5; pg. 431

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Gratitude - Parent of all virtues. The Psychologist Vol 20 pt 1. 18-21

APPENDIX

Form 1 - Mood Measurement - Daily Record Sheet

Day # /date______

Time of Day ______

Method (eg. Oral)______

Mood Rating at start ______

Mood Rating: Minute 1______Minute 2______Minute 3______

Minute 4______Minute 5______

Remarks______

Table 2. - Summary of Experiment’s Results, Part I

Day# Meth- No of Base Peak Base Peak Remarks od Ses- Mood Mood Mood Mood sions Avg Avg Mode Mode 1 - 17 Base- 17 AM 0.5 n/a +1 n/a Morning averaged lower than line night’s; was more labile. Night’s averaged higher & more stable. 17 PM 0.7 n/a +1 n/a Day, mood levels tended upward. 18 -24 Verbal 7 AM 0.4 +1.7 +1 +1.8 Verbal mood averaged just below 7 PM 0.7 +1.8 +1 +1.8 moderate happiness.

25 -31 Mental 7 AM 0 +2.2 +1 +2. Mental mood averaged just above 7 PM 0.8 +2.1 0 +2 moderate happiness.

32- 38 Writ- 7 AM 0.6 +1.4 +1 +1.5 Written mood averaged at midway ten 7 PM 0.6 +1.5 +1 +1.5 between mild & moderate happiness.

39 -48 Base- 10 AM 0.7 n/a +1 n/a AM & PM averages marginally line 10 PM 1.0 n/a +1 n/a higher than pre-experiment baseline averages. Modes remain unchanged.

Table 4. Summary of Results, Parts II & IIA

Day# Meth- No of Base Peak Base Peak Remarks od Ses- Mood Mood Mood Mood sions Avg Avg Mode Mode 49- 53 Mental 5 AM 0.6 +3 0 +3 Freeform gratitude AM & PM Pt. II free- results both show extraordinary from 5 PM 0.6 +3 +1 +2.8; happiness. +3 54-60 Mental 7 AM +2 +3.5 +2 See With introduction of playful Pt. IIA free- re- breath morning peak modes = 3, form/ 7 PM 1.6 +3.8 +1 marks 3.5, & 4; breath Night peak mode = +5 (ecstasy)

Raw Data: Mood Rating - Project Pre-Experiment Baseline

Day # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 AM +1 0 0 -1 +2 +2 0 -1 +1 PM 0 0 -1 -1 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 Day # 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - AM +1 +1 0 0 +1 +1 +1 0 - PM +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 -

Raw Data – The Effect of Verbal Gratitude on Mood

Day # 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Before AM 0 0 0 1 1 -1 1 After AM 1.5 1.5 1.8 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 Before PM 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 After PM 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 1.5 1.8

Raw Data – The Effect of Mental Gratitude on Mood

Day # 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Before AM -1 -1 1 0 0 1 0 After AM 2 1.8 3 2 2 2 2 Before PM 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 After PM 2 1.8 3 2 1.8 2 2

Raw Data – The Effect of Written Gratitude on Mood

Day # 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Before AM -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 After AM 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 Before PM 0 0 1 -1 1 1 2 After PM 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2

Raw Data: Mood Rating - Project Post-Experiment Baseline

Day # 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 AM 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 PM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Raw Data: Mood Rating – Mental Gratitude, Free-Form

Day # 49 50 51 52 53 Before AM +1 +1 0 0 0 After AM +3 2.5 3 3.3 3 Before AM -1 1 1 1 1 After PM +3 3 2.8 3.3 2.8

Raw Data: Mood Rating – Mental Gratitude, Free-Form with Breath

Day # 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Before AM 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 After PM 5 3.5 3 3.5 4 3 4 Before AM 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 After PM 3.5 5 5 5 4 5 4

Graph 6 -Post Experiment Baseline