Not All Positive Emotions Are Equivalent

Home , Elevation (emotion)

Not all positive emotions are equivalent: A trait and state analysis of the differential effects of gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration on eudaimonic wellbeing

Elizabeth Barrett-Cheetham

Faculty of Science

School of Psychology

November, 2017

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the degrees of

Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Psychology (Organisational)

Supervisor: Lisa A Williams

PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES THESIS/DISSERTATION SHEET

Surname or Family name: Barrett-Cheetham

First name: Elizabeth Other name/s: Harriet Rose

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar:

School: Psychology Faculty:Science

Title: Not all positive emotions are equivalent: A trait and state analysis of the differential effects of gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration on eudaimonic wellbeing

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) A rich history of research in psychology has highlighted the role that positive emotions play in promoting eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB), yet past studies often fail to differentiate between discrete positive emotions. As such, potential functional differences among positive emotions in contributing to EWB may have been overlooked. The research presented herein tests a novel model predicting relationships between five discrete positive emotions (gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration) and other- and self-focused subtypes of EWB. These links are posited to be explained through each emotion’s effects on communion and agency motivations. Specifically, gratitude, compassion, and moral elevation were expected to primarily impact other-focused EWB due to their influence on communion motivation, whereas pride was predicted to primarily relate to self-focused EWB because of its influence on agency motivation. Admiration was expected to affect other- and self-focused EWB equivalently due to its influence on both communion and agency motivations, respectively.

This theoretical model was tested using structural equation modelling across a series of eight studies that adopted a range of sampling techniques (university participants, community samples), methodological designs (cross-sectional, experimental), emotion induction techniques (interpersonal, vignette) and measurement techniques (self-report, behavioural, and trait- and state-level of assessment). The following conclusions were drawn from the results of a meta-analytic multiple group analysis: Individuals who are dispositionally inclined to experience gratitude, compassion, and pride also experience elevated other-focused EWB. Results also supported the hypothesis that the link between trait compassion and other-focused EWB is primarily explained via communion motivation and that dispositional pride indirectly links to self-focused EWB via agency motivation. Additionally, although a relatively weaker link and against expectations, dispositional admiration can be detrimental to individuals’ self-focused EWB. This research is pivotal in its simultaneous consideration of how positive emotions of the same valence might differentially impact EWB. Advancing both theory and methodology, these findings highlight the potential utility of adopting approaches that differentiate among positive emotions in applied and theoretical work in the field of positive psychology.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

25/02/17 …………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..……………… ……….……………… Signature Witness Signature Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

ii Originality Statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

iii COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

'I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Date ... 10/0\ I.\R ......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

'I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital fonnat.'

Date J0/01/.\ ..8...... Acknowledgments

I would not have been able to complete this research without the support of UNSW and, in particular, my supervisor, Lisa Williams. I am extraordinarily grateful for the intellectual, financial and practical support they have given me throughout. Lisa has not only provided me with scholarly advice along the way, but also supported me emotionally. I couldn’t have asked for a better supervisor. This research has been a collegiate effort which has also involved the willing participation in my wellbeing studies from UNSW psychology students and both Australian and US community members. Thank you also to my statistical advisor, Tim Bednall.

Beyond UNSW many friends, colleagues, and family members have given freely of their time to advise, cajole, motivate, inspire, empathise, feed, and house me. They too, are part of the greater collective undertaking and I could not have fulfilled the thesis requirements without their help. Thank you Joel for reading the whole story; thank you Bec for bearing the brunt of my occasional frustrations. Thanks too to Brent, Craig, and Hilary at

Macquarie Bank for patiently accommodating my part time employment while I juggled my

PhD and career commitments.

My indebtedness to my family is immense: to my in-laws, Rob and Karen, who have gone beyond the call of duty in continuing to sustain an extra family member; to Aunty Barb and my safe house in Sydney; to Brian, my dad, for proof-reading my thesis several times and for his gentle chiding (are you there yet?); and to Val, my mum, for her consistently authoritative parenting style.

Most of all to my partner Tom, for his loving patience and total acceptance of all my annoyingness, thank you heaps. I love you.

Publications and Presentations during Candidature

Barrett-Cheetham, E., Williams, L. A., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). A differentiated approach to

the link between positive emotion, motivation, and eudaimonic wellbeing. The Journal

of Positive Psychology, 11(6), 595–608. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1152502

Barrett-Cheetham, E., Williams, L. A., & Bednall, T. C. (2015). A differentiated approach to

the link between positive emotion and wellbeing. Poster session presented at the Society

of Affective Science 2nd Annual Conference, Oakland, CA.

Abstract

A rich history of research in psychology has highlighted the role that positive emotions play in promoting eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB), yet past studies often fail to differentiate between discrete positive emotions. As such, potential functional differences among positive emotions in contributing to EWB may have been overlooked. The research presented herein tests a novel model predicting relationships between five discrete positive emotions (gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration) and other- and self- focused subtypes of EWB. These links are posited to be explained through each emotion’s effects on communion and agency motivations. Specifically, gratitude, compassion, and moral elevation were expected to primarily impact other-focused EWB due to their influence on communion motivation, whereas pride was predicted to primarily relate to self-focused

EWB because of its influence on agency motivation. Admiration was expected to affect other- and self-focused EWB equivalently due to its influence on both communion and agency motivations, respectively.

Additionally, although a relatively weaker link and against expectations, dispositional admiration can be detrimental to individuals’ self-focused EWB. This research is pivotal in its simultaneous consideration of how positive emotions of the same valence might differentially impact EWB. Advancing both theory and methodology, these findings highlight the potential utility of adopting approaches that differentiate among positive emotions in applied and theoretical work in the field of positive psychology.

vii

Table of Contents

Originality Statement ...... iii

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Publications and Presentations during Candidature ...... v

Abstract ...... vi

List of Tables ...... xvii

List of Figures ...... xix

Chapter 1: A Differentiated Approach to the Link between Positive Emotion,

Motivation, and Eudaimonic Wellbeing ...... 1

WELLBEING ...... 3

Positive Emotions and Eudaimonic Wellbeing ...... 7

Gratitude ...... 9

Compassion ...... 10

Pride ...... 11

Interim Summary: Positive Emotions and Eudaimonic Wellbeing ...... 12

COMMUNION AND AGENCY MOTIVATIONS...... 13

Communion, Agency, and Positive Emotions ...... 13

Agency, Communion, and Eudaimonic Wellbeing ...... 16

THE PRESENT RESEARCH ...... 18

Aim ...... 18

Significance of Research ...... 18

Methodological Overview ...... 19

Sampling ...... 22

viii

State versus Trait Levels of Analysis ...... 22

Emotion Manipulation and Measurement ...... 23

Motivation Measurement ...... 25

Wellbeing Measurement ...... 26

Analytic Strategy ...... 26

Gender Effects ...... 29

Structure of Thesis ...... 29

Chapter 2: Gratitude, Compassion, and Pride: The Trait Level of Experience ...... 30

STUDY 1A ...... 30

Method ...... 31

Participants and Procedure ...... 31

Measures ...... 31

Analytic Strategy ...... 33

Results ...... 33

Model Testing ...... 33

Alternative Model ...... 39

Discussion ...... 40

Evidence for the Proposed Model ...... 40

Conclusion ...... 42

STUDY 1B ...... 43

Aim 1: Replication of Model ...... 43

Positive Emotions to EWB ...... 44

Emotions to Motivations and Motivations to EWB ...... 45

Interim Summary: Replication of Model ...... 45

Aim 2: Sample Specificity ...... 46

Stressor-Support Specificity Model ...... 46

Present Study ...... 47 ix

Method ...... 48

Participants, Procedure and Measures ...... 48

Analytic Strategy ...... 49

Results ...... 50

Sample Testing ...... 50

Model Testing ...... 51

Alternative Model ...... 56

Discussion ...... 56

Evidence for the Proposed Model ...... 57

Situational Sampling ...... 61

Conclusion ...... 62

CHAPTER 2 CONCLUSION ...... 62

Chapter 3. Extension to Moral Elevation and Admiration: The Trait Level of

Experience ...... 63

Moral Elevation ...... 64

Admiration ...... 66

Summary ...... 68

STUDY 2A ...... 68

Overview of Scale Development ...... 70

Hypotheses ...... 70

Method ...... 73

Participants and Procedure ...... 73

Measures ...... 73

Analytic Strategy ...... 76

Results ...... 76

Scale Construction: Initial Analysis ...... 76

Internal and Test-Retest Reliability ...... 79

Discriminant Validity ...... 79

Criterion Validity ...... 80

Discussion ...... 84

Inspiration and Moral Care ...... 84

Dispositional Positive Emotions ...... 84

Adult Attachment Style ...... 85

Subjective Wellbeing ...... 86

Dropped Items ...... 86

Distinctiveness of Moral Elevation and Admiration ...... 87

Conclusion ...... 88

STUDY 2B ...... 88

Method ...... 89

Participants and Procedure ...... 89

Measures ...... 89

Analytic Strategy ...... 90

Results ...... 91

Model Testing ...... 91

Alternative Model ...... 96

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...... 96

Discussion ...... 97

Evidence for the Original Proposed Model ...... 98

Evidence for the Extended Proposed Model ...... 100

Conclusion ...... 101

CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION ...... 101

Chapter 4. Gratitude, Compassion, and Pride: The State Level of Experience ...... 102 xi

STUDY 3 ...... 103

Method ...... 104

Participants ...... 104

Procedure and Design ...... 104

Measures ...... 110

Analytic Strategy ...... 112

Results ...... 113

Manipulation Check ...... 113

Model Testing ...... 115

Discussion ...... 121

Evidence for the Proposed Model ...... 121

Emotion Inductions ...... 124

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION ...... 127

Chapter 5. Extension to Moral Elevation and Admiration: The State Level of

Experience ...... 128

STUDY 4A ...... 130

Method ...... 131

Participants ...... 131

Procedure and Design ...... 131

Manipulations and Measures ...... 132

Analytic Strategy ...... 134

Results ...... 135

Manipulation Check ...... 135

Model Testing ...... 138

Discussion ...... 143

Evidence for Proposed Model ...... 143

xii

Emotion Inductions ...... 146

Conclusion ...... 147

STUDY 4B ...... 148

Method ...... 149

Participants ...... 149

Procedure and Design ...... 149

Manipulations and Measures ...... 149

Analytic Strategy ...... 150

Results ...... 150

Manipulation Check ...... 150

Model Testing ...... 153

Discussion ...... 157

Evidence for the Proposed Model ...... 157

Emotion Inductions ...... 160

Conclusion ...... 160

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ...... 160

Chapter 6. Extension of Compassion and Pride: Behavioural Measures of

Motivation at the State Level of Experience ...... 162

STUDY 5A ...... 163

Method ...... 164

Participants ...... 164

Procedure and Design ...... 165

Manipulations and Measures ...... 165

Analytic Strategy ...... 167

Results ...... 168

Manipulation Check ...... 168

xiii

Model Testing ...... 170

Discussion ...... 175

Evidence for the Proposed Model ...... 175

Conclusion ...... 176

STUDY 5B ...... 176

Method ...... 177

Participants ...... 177

Procedure and Design ...... 177

Manipulations and Measures ...... 178

Analytic Strategy ...... 179

Results ...... 179

Manipulation Check ...... 179

Model Testing ...... 182

Discussion ...... 186

Evidence for the Proposed Model ...... 186

Emotion Inductions ...... 188

Conclusion ...... 189

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION ...... 189

Chapter 7. Gratitude, Compassion and Pride: Synthesis of Results ...... 190

METHOD ...... 192

Step 1: Overall Model Relationships ...... 195

Step 2: Trait/State Moderation Analysis ...... 195

Step 3: Relative Strength Assessment ...... 196

Additional Analyses ...... 197

Analytic Approach Summary...... 198

RESULTS ...... 198

xiv

Original Proposed Model ...... 206

Gratitude ...... 206

Compassion ...... 208

Pride ...... 209

Generalised Positivity ...... 210

Extended Proposed Model ...... 211

Moral Elevation ...... 211

Admiration ...... 211

Step 3: Relative Strength Assessment ...... 211

CONCLUSION ...... 212

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 214

EVIDENCE FOR THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED MODEL ...... 216

Gratitude ...... 218

Compassion ...... 221

Pride ...... 222

Generalised Positivity ...... 224

EVIDENCE FOR THE EXTENDED PROPOSED MODEL ...... 225

Moral Elevation ...... 225

Admiration ...... 226

REVISITING THE MODEL ...... 228

Measurement Discrepancies ...... 228

Contextual Influences on State Constructs ...... 233

IMPLICATIONS ...... 235

Theoretical Implications ...... 235

Practical Implications ...... 238

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ...... 240

Methodological Limitations and Future Directions ...... 240

Theoretical Limitations and Future Directions ...... 251

CONCLUSION ...... 253

References ...... 255

Appendices ...... 301

Appendix A: Initial Moral Elevation/Admiration Items ...... 301

Appendix B: Experimenter Script ...... 303

Appendix C: Study 4a Vignettes ...... 308

Appendix D: Study 4b Vignettes ...... 310

Appendix E: Study 5a Autobiographical Recall Instructions ...... 312

Appendix F: Study 5b Vignettes ...... 314

Appendix G: EWB Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...... 316

xvi

List of Tables

Table 1 Study Design across Studies 1a-5b ...... 21

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Measured Constructs

(Study 1a) ...... 35

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Measured Constructs

(Study 1b) ...... 52

Table 4 Pattern Matrix of Retained Moral Elevation and Admiration Items (Study 2a) ...... 78

Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Moral

Elevation/Admiration and the DPES (Study 2a) ...... 82

Table 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Moral

Elevation/Admiration, Personality, Attachment Style and Subjective Wellbeing (Study 2a) ..... 83

Table 7 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Measured Constructs

(Study 2b) ...... 92

Table 8 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all

conditions combined; Study 3) ...... 117

Table 9 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all

conditions combined; Study 4a) ...... 140

Table 10 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all

conditions combined; Study 4b) ...... 154

Table 11 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all

conditions combined; Study 5a) ...... 172

Table 12 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all

conditions combined; Study 5b) ...... 183

Table 13 Study Design across Studies that Assessed the Proposed Model ...... 191

Table 14 Multiple Group Results: Gratitude ...... 200

Table 15 Multiple Group Results: Compassion ...... 201

Table 16 Multiple Group Results: Pride ...... 202 xvii

Table 17 Multiple Group Results: Generalised Positivity ...... 203

Table 18 Multiple Group Results: Moral Elevation ...... 204

Table 19 Multiple Group Results: Admiration ...... 205

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic

wellbeing...... 3

Figure 1a. Proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic

wellbeing, highlighting links between emotions and motivations...... 14

Figure 1b. Proposed model of the relationships between motivations, and eudaimonic wellbeing,

highlighting links between motivations and EWB subtypes...... 16

Figure 2. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from Study 1a...... 36

Figure 3. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths collapsed across

subsamples (Study 1b)...... 53

Figure 4. Original proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and

eudaimonic wellbeing, extended to include moral elevation and admiration (Study 2b)...... 64

Figure 5. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 2b)...... 93

Figure 6. Measurement model including standardised estimates of significant loadings (Study 2b). .. 97

Figure 7. Procedure and emotion manipulations used in Study 3...... 106

Figure 8. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for

Study 3...... 114

Figure 9. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 3)...... 118

Figure 10. Proposed model of the relationships between compassion, moral elevation, and eudaimonic

wellbeing (Study 4a)...... 131

Figure 11. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for

Study 4a...... 137

Figure 12. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 4a)...... 141

Figure 13. Proposed model of the relationships between pride, admiration, and eudaimonic wellbeing

(Study 4b)...... 148

Figure 14. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for

Study 4b...... 152 xix

Figure 15. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 4b)...... 155

Figure 16. Proposed model of the relationships between pride, compassion, and eudaimonic wellbeing

(Study 5a)...... 164

Figure 17. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for

Study 5a...... 169

Figure 18. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 5a)...... 173

Figure 19. Focal emotion manipulation check results across and within each emotion condition for

Study 5b...... 181

Figure 20. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 5b)...... 184

Figure 21. Flow chart of the three steps in the multiple group analysis...... 194

Chapter 1: A Differentiated Approach to the Link between Positive Emotion, Motivation, and Eudaimonic Wellbeing

In Australia, 45% of people have experienced a mental illness at some point in their lives (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2009), and alarmingly these mental illness rates are rising (ABS, 2012). These prevalence statistics go hand in hand with a large societal cost.

Specifically, the resulting lost wages and productivity, medical costs, and disability claims have been estimated to cost the Australian Government $20 billion per year (ABS, 2009).

Similar data emerges from countries around the world (Pedersen et al., 2014; see Steel et al.,

2014 for a global meta-analysis), representing a challenge to modern society. The ability to understand the factors that contribute to mental illness is a pertinent and pressing need.

Eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB) has been found to be a major factor in the prevention of mental illness (Wood & Joseph, 2010; see Fava & Ruini, 2003 for an overview).

Eudaimonic perspectives on wellbeing emphasise the importance of self-actualisation

(reaching one’s potential). In such views, focus is placed not only on experiencing pleasure, but also on long-term striving for mastery and personal growth (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff,

1995).

A number of factors contribute to EWB. These factors can be grouped into two main categories: external influences (e.g., wealth, social class) and psychological influences (e.g., personality, general positive mood) (Ryan & Deci, 2001). While these categories are comprehensive, many other factors remain under-investigated. Positive emotions are a prime example. Extant research has shown that positive emotions collectively correlate positively

1 with EWB (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008; Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff,

2002; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Yet, no research to date has comprehensively differentiated between discrete positive emotions, nor, of most relevance to the research presented herein, considered the differential effects that discrete positive emotions might have on subtypes of

EWB: self- and other-focused. The research presented in this dissertation aimed to fill that gap by testing the proposed model depicted in Figure 1. The proposed model focuses on the positive emotions gratitude, compassion, and pride. Across nine studies deploying both experimental and cross-sectional designs, the research aimed to provide a test of proposed mechanisms of the link between discrete positive emotions and subtypes of EWB: communion and agency motivations. As such, this work speaks not only to which positive emotions contribute to EWB, but also how this occurs. In addition to carrying theoretical implications for the field of emotion research, this research may also inform EWB interventions, both at the individual and community level, thus contributing to the management of widespread and growing mental health problems (ABS, 2012; Steel et al.,

2014).

Communion motivation

Gratitude Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Compassion Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 1. Proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic wellbeing. Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger links.

The current chapter will first present the underlying rationale for this model, starting with a discussion of wellbeing, then moving to a review of relevant literature on the effects of positive emotions on wellbeing. Next, the potential mechanisms of communion and agency motivations will be reviewed. This chapter will also provide an overview of the various methodologies used to test the proposed model, as well as the analytical approach and the structure of the dissertation.

WELLBEING

The construct of wellbeing encompasses a wide array of psychological phenomena.

One useful classification between types of wellbeing differentiates between hedonic wellbeing (HWB) and eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB). HWB captures individuals’ experiences of pleasure and pain, with the most common conceptualisation being subjective wellbeing.

Subjective wellbeing broadly includes people’s affective responses (i.e., positive and negative affect) and global judgements about one’s life (Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & 3

Smith, 1999). Decades-long and as-yet-unresolved debates exist regarding whether wellness can be adequately defined from a hedonic perspective (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989).

The utility of pursuing HWB has been questioned for centuries: Aristotle himself viewed

HWB as a vulgar pursuit (Fromm, 1981; Ryan & Deci, 2001).

EWB reflects self-actualisation, that is, reaching one’s full potential (Ryff & Keyes,

1995) and includes feelings of environmental mastery, personal growth, self-esteem, and life purpose (Kashdan, Uswatte, & Julian, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2012; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes,

1995). EWB incorporates a range of different theoretical perspectives, including but not limited to Maslow's (1968) notion of self-actualisation, Roger's (1961) concept of the fully functioning individual, Jung's (1933) theory of individuation, and Allport's (1961) idea of maturity.

HWB and EWB both co-occur with several psychological and health qualities – with positive relationships emerging for positive qualities and negative relationships emerging for negative qualities. In such studies, correlations with EWB are often relatively stronger than those with HWB. For instance, EWB correlates more strongly than HWB with wisdom

(Webster, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2014), the dark triad (i.e., composite of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism; Aghababaei & Błachnio, 2015), honesty and humility

(Aghababaei & Arji, 2014), and psychological distress (Steptoe, O’Donnell, Marmot, &

Wardle, 2008). A similar pattern whereby EWB has a stronger association than HWB occurs for physical qualities as well: sleep problems (Steptoe et al., 2008) and biomarker assessments (i.e., cardiovascular risk, daily salivary cortisol; Ryff, Singer, & Dienberg Love,

2004). Note that there are cases in which HWB has a stronger association with outcomes than

EWB, though these are limited (e.g., neuroticism, Burns & Machin, 2010; cf. Keyes, Kendler,

Myers, & Martin, 2015; perceived stress at work, Vazi et al., 2013). While these data are correlational, and thus cannot speak to the causal direction between wellbeing and outcomes, 4

they are suggestive that wellbeing, and EWB in particular, might positively contribute to desired psychological and health outcomes.

Another directional question is of relevance: whether EWB influences HWB, vice versa, or both. HWB is commonly considered a by-product of EWB by many researchers

(Burns & Machin, 2010; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; see Ryan & Deci, 2001 for an overview), including by Ed Diener himself (Diener, Sapyta, & Suh, 1998). Longitudinal evidence exists to support this claim: EWB boosts positive affect (Burns & Machin, 2012). Yet, evidence also suggests that the reverse relationship is feasible. For example, within an experimental design, positive affect boosts the EWB construct of self-efficacy (Schutte, 2014).

In the current research, I adopted a focus on EWB for the two reasons described above: 1) the psychological and physical benefits to an individual are greater for experiences of EWB than HWB, and 2) EWB causes HWB. I further adopted a view of EWB as differentiable into self-focused and other-focused subtypes. This dichotomy is supported by factor analytic studies in which the components of mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance formed one factor (self-focused) and positive relations with others formed another factor (other-focused; Abbott et al., 2006; Burns & Machin, 2009, 2012;

Gallagher, Lopez, & Preacher, 2009; Kafka & Kozma, 2002). Note that within these factor analytic studies, autonomy – a sixth component of EWB – did not show a consistent pattern.

For example, some studies report autonomy as its own separate factor (Abbott et al., 2006;

Burns & Machin, 2009, 2012), whereas others have found that it loads onto the self-focused factor (Gallagher et al., 2009) or the other-focused factor (Kafka & Kozma, 2002). Given this inconsistency, autonomy was not modelled in the current research.

Ryan and Deci (2001) argued that the most useful insights into wellbeing would be obtained by examining factors leading to divergence, rather than convergence, of subtypes of wellbeing. The present research represents an empirical response to this call by testing a 5

novel model in which discrete positive emotions are posited to carry unique influence on self- focused and other-focused EWB.

Before detailing the rationale for the proposed links between positive emotion and

EWB, I note two things of import. First, EWB has been conceptualised as either a process or an outcome. With regard to the former, EWB is a process whereby an individual lives well by pursuing intrinsic goals and behaving in ways that satisfy their basic psychological needs

(i.e., self-determination theory: Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryan et al., 2008). With regard to the latter, EWB is an outcome achieved when an individual has accomplished a strong sense of purpose and attained positive relationships with those around them (e.g., Ryff, 1989;

Waterman, 1993). In the development of the proposed model assessed in the research presented herein, I adopted the latter view: self- and other-focused EWB were considered as potential outcomes of experiencing certain emotions and motivations.

Second, some researchers have questioned whether wellbeing is a mutable construct that changes over time, and thus can be the subject of intervention. This doubt stems from two areas of research: 1) twin studies showing that 50 percent of wellbeing is genetically heritable, and 2) work supporting the notion that people adapt to positive life events and subsequently return to baseline levels of wellbeing (i.e., hedonic adaptation; see

Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof, Boehm, & Sheldon, 2011 for an overview). On a more positive note, however, a third area of research has consistently shown that activities, such as increasing levels of discrete positive emotion, also builds wellbeing (e.g., Isen, Daubman, &

Nowicki, 1987; Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003; see Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2012 and Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005 for a review).

Positive Emotions and Eudaimonic Wellbeing

In the current work, I adopted a definition of emotions as subjectively-experienced feeling states that arise when individuals appraise a certain situation as relevant to their own concerns (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991). Emotions are often accompanied by physiological, cognitive, and behavioural changes (Carlson & Hatfield, 1992).; Such changes, in the functionalist view (Ekman, 1992; Levenson, 1999; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990; see Keltner &

Gross, 1999 for a review) adopted here, have situationally-aligned functions. Specifically, 1) to organise thoughts and behaviours towards adaptive ends, and 2) to signal to others important information about the current situation (Levenson, 1999). For example, fear is elicited when an individual perceives that their survival is at risk (e.g., a snake in the grass, an enemy with a weapon; Öhman, 1986). In turn, fear promotes changes that assist in responding to that threat (e.g., fleeing or fighting; Bossuyt, Moors, & De Houwer, 2014) and its expression, for instance, on the face, helps to communicate the presence of the threat to observers (Mathews, Fox, Yiend, & Calder, 2003).

Considerable debate exists about the nature of emotion (see Emotion Review, 2010

(Volume 2, Issue 4), but a commonly agreed upon feature of emotional experience is that it is valenced. Positively-valenced emotions (e.g., joy, excitement) are subjectively experienced as pleasant whereas negatively-valenced emotions (e.g., fear, anger) are experienced as unpleasant (Watson & Tellegen, 1985).

Research linking positive emotion to EWB stems from two approaches: the broaden- and-build theory and the construal approach to happiness. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998) posits that positive emotions broaden attention and build personal resources. Empirical support for this theory is robust (e.g., broadening attention: Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2006; building resources: see Fredrickson, 1998 for a review). Notably, the resource-building function of positive 7

emotion comprises two aspects that parallel the two subtypes of EWB: intellectual resource- building and social resource-building. Specifically, intellectual resources, such as problem solving skills, correspond with environmental mastery (i.e., self-focused EWB). Social resources, such as strong social relationships, correspond with postive relations with others

(i.e., other-focused EWB). In fact, research from the broaden-and-build perspective directly supports the premise that the experience of positive emotions promotes both self- and other- focused EWB (Fredrickson et al., 2008).

The construal approach to happiness stipulates that experiencing happiness or positive emotions leads individuals to interpret their lives in a more optimistic way, through metaphorical rose-colored glasses (Lyubomirsky, 2001; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998).

Optimism, in turn, contributes positively to EWB (e.g., Augusto-Landa, Pulido-Martos, &

Lopez-Zafra, 2011; Gallagher & Lopez, 2009).

In past research linking positive emotion to EWB, postive emotions are generally treated as a unitary construct, under the premise that they function similarly in their contributory role to wellbeing. Current trends in emotion research, however, highlight the utility of adopting a differentiated view by considering the unique functions of discrete emotions of the same valence (Campos, Shiota, Keltner, Gonzaga, & Goetz, 2013;

(Griskevicius, Shiota, & Neufeld, 2010 ; Sauter, 2010; Shiota et al., 2014; Tong, 2015). In the current research, I adopted such a perspective, comparing the influence of three discrete positive emotions on other- and self-focused EWB: gratitude, compassion, and pride. In the following sections, I consider these emotions in turn, focusing first on a definition of the construct before reviewing extant findings on the relationship of that emotion to EWB. As will become clear, current understanding of the functions of these particular emotions supports the premise that they may influence self- and other-focused EWB differentially.

Further, these three emotions provide a balanced selection as I hypothesise that one of these 8

emotions promote self-focused EWB (i.e., pride) whereas the other two promote other- focused EWB (i.e., gratitude and compassion).

Gratitude

Gratitude is the emotion that commonly arises when another person has given the individual something of value (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). The find- remind-and-bind theory of gratitude (Algoe, 2012) articulates the various functions of gratitude: gratitude serves to help individuals find new relationships (e.g., Algoe, Haidt, &

Gable, 2008; Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Williams & Bartlett, 2015), remind them of their existing relationships (e.g., Algoe, Fredrickson, & Gable, 2013; Algoe, Gable, & Maisel,

2010; Gordon, Impett, Kogan, Oveis, & Keltner, 2012; Gordon, Arnette, & Smith, 2011) and, consequently, bind them with others (Bartlett, Condon, Cruz, Baumann, & Desteno, 2012;

Jia, Tong, & Lee, 2014; Kubacka, Finkenauer, Rusbult, & Keijsers, 2011; Lambert &

Fincham, 2011).

I am not the first to propose that gratitude boosts EWB. Individuals who experience gratitude frequently and in high intensity (i.e., those high in dispositional gratitude) experience relatively high levels of self-esteem (Macaskill & Denovan, 2014) and vitality

(McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002), suggesting links between gratitude and self-focused

EWB. This same relationship holds when considering moment-to-moment, or state, gratitude: lagged analyses show that gratitude predicts self-esteem (Nezlek, Newman, & Thrash, 2016).

Further, gratitude enhances the quality and quantity of social connections (e.g., Algoe, 2012;

Algoe & Zhaoyang, 2016; Algoe et al., 2008, 2010; see DeSteno, Condon, & Dickens, 2016 for an overview) and in so doing promotes an individual’s sense of having positive relations with others (i.e., other-focused EWB). While this evidence is suggestive that gratitude might promote both self- and other-focused EWB, research employing measures of Ryff's (1989) six components of wellbeing found that gratitude was more strongly related to other-focused, 9

rather than self-focused, facets of EWB (Ruini & Vescovelli, 2013; Wood, Joseph, & Maltby,

2009), a pattern expected to be replicated in the present research. This difference in relative strength is depicted in the proposed model (Figure 1).

Compassion

Compassion is the emotion that commonly arises from witnessing another’s suffering

(Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010) and functions to motivate helping behaviour

(Condon & DeSteno, 2011; Lim & Desteno, 2016; see Goetz et al., 2010 for a review).

Despite being elicited by the negative state of another individual, compassion is experienced as a positive emotion (Fultz, Schaller, & Cialdini, 1988; cf. Condon & Feldman Barrett,

2013; see Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987 for a review) and is also classified by lay people as positive (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987).

Possible links between compassion and other-focused EWB are suggested by past research demonstrating that holding compassionate goals leads to satisfying, close, and responsive relationships (Canevello & Crocker, 2011). Further, individuals inclined to experience compassion frequently engage in trusting and cooperative negotiation relationships (Liu & Wang, 2010). Finally, individuals asked to recall an instance of compassionate love (i.e., a caring attitude towards others) report feeling closer to others

(Sprecher & Fehr, 2006). These positive outcomes of compassion are all components of other-focused EWB.

Links between compassion and self-focused EWB are also suggested by existing research. Bach & Guse (2015) demonstrated that, in comparison to a control group, individuals who engaged in compassion-focused meditation had higher levels of environmental mastery and personal growth. In a related vein, Sprecher and Fehr (2006) demonstrated that individuals led to feel compassionate love reported boosts in self-esteem.

Further, practicing compassionate acts (Mongrain, Chin, & Shapira, 2011) and pursuing 10

compassionate goals (Canevello & Crocker, 2011) can lead to sustained boosts in self- esteem. However, the relatively stronger contribution of compassion to other-focused than self-focused EWB is supported by evidence that compassion boosted feelings of closeness with others more so than it boosted self-esteem (Sprecher & Fehr, 2006). As such, relatively stronger links between compassion and other-focused EWB than between compassion and self-focused EWB were expected, and are captured in the proposed model.

Pride

Pride is the emotion that commonly arises when one feels accountable for a successful outcome on a socially-valued task or for being a socially-valued person (Mascolo

& Fischer, 1995). Current conceptualisations of pride posit that it is intrinsically tied to social status (Tracy, Weidman, Cheng, & Martens, 2013; Shiota, Campos, Keltner, & Hertenstein,

2004). That is, pride functions specifically to assist in the navigation of social hierarchies by signaling to the self and others that a boost in status is warranted.

The distinction between hubristic and authentic facets of pride is worth acknowledging. Hubristic pride (e.g., I’m proud because I am always great at everything I do) and authentic pride (i.e., I’m proud of my one accomplishment) have been argued to represent distinct facets of pride that carry differential outcomes in interpersonal settings (see

Tracy & Robins, 2007 for a review). This approach, however, has been the subject of critique on both theoretical and methodological grounds (Clark, 2010; Holbrook, Piazza, & Fessler,

2014; Williams & DeSteno, 2010). Hence, the present research adopted the context perspective argued by Williams and DeSteno (2010) in which pride is adaptive (i.e., has positive outcomes) to the extent that it is tied to a valid eliciting event. Pride can become maladaptive when it is overgeneralised beyond the eliciting event. As such, authentic and hubristic pride do not represent discrete emotions but rather contextually-appropriate vs.

contextually inappropriate versions of the same emotion, much as the case for sadness and depression and fear and phobia.

The links between pride and self-focused EWB are strongly suggested by past research. Pride correlates positively with self-esteem (Orth, Robins, & Soto, 2010; Tracy,

Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski, 2009; Williams & DeSteno, 2008) and having a sense of achievement and purpose in life (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010), all of which are components of self-focused EWB. Pride may also be linked to other-focused EWB.

Dispositional pride is correlated with perceived social support (Tracy et al., 2009), and perceived social support in turn predicts positive relationships with others (Keresteš, Brković,

& Jagodić, 2012). Research that has included measures of both self-focused EWB (e.g., self- esteem) and constructs related to other-focused EWB (e.g., agreeableness) has found stronger relationships between pride and self-focused EWB (Tracy & Robins, 2007), a pattern expected in the current research.

Interim Summary: Positive Emotions and Eudaimonic Wellbeing

Extant evidence reviewed above gives rise to a set of hypotheses that posit primary, differentiated links between the three focal discrete positive emotions and subtypes of EWB: gratitude and compassion contribute to other-focused EWB and pride contributes to self- focused EWB. These are depicted as bolded lines in the proposed model in Figure 1 below.

However, despite these effects being proposed as the primary or strongest links, they are not expected to occur at the exclusion of the following cross-linked pathways: pride to other- focused EWB and gratitude and compassion to self-focused EWB. That said, these cross- linked pathways were expected to be relatively weaker than the primary links outlined above.

Communion motivation

Gratitude Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Compassion Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 1 (repeated from page 3). Proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic wellbeing. Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger links. COMMUNION AND AGENCY MOTIVATIONS

Communion and agency motivations are posited as mediators of the links between the three focal discrete positive emotions and subtypes of EWB. Agency and communion reflect two fundamental types of motivation (Bakan, 1966). Agency motivation reflects a drive to pursue activities that focus on bettering oneself and experiencing competence, dominance, and achievement. Communion motivation reflects individuals’ attempts to relate to and help others (Bakan, 1966; Helgeson, 1994).

Communion, Agency, and Positive Emotions

In the proposed model, gratitude, compassion, and pride are postulated to give rise to communion and agency motivations, as highlighted in the dashed box in Figure 1a. This premise is grounded in empirical and theoretical differentiation of the appraisals and functions associated with these three discrete positive emotions.

Communion motivation

Gratitude Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Compassion Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 1a. Proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic wellbeing, highlighting links between emotions and motivations. Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger links.

Appraisal-based differentiation between emotions focuses on the meaning-making an individual undertakes when encountering an emotion-eliciting situation. Appraisal theories of emotion (see Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003 for a review) dictate that emotions arise when a situation is novel and relevant to an individual’s concerns. Emotions are subsequently differentiated based on further appraisals that occur along a number of dimensions (e.g., pleasantness, goal significance).

Tong (2015) found that gratitude and compassion are differentiated from pride based on their relative positions within the two-dimensional space formed by two higher-order appraisal dimensions: external influence and achievement. Whereas gratitude and compassion were high on external influence and low on achievement, pride was high on achievement and low on external influence. Similarly, a confirmatory factor analysis of a scale measuring a range of dispositional positive emotions (i.e., Dispositional Positive Emotion Scale: Shiota, 14

Keltner, & John, 2006) found that pride belonged to a self-oriented higher order factor and compassion to an other-oriented higher order factor (Güsewell & Ruch, 2012). These empirical findings substantiate theoretical approaches positing that gratitude and compassion are other-focused and pride is self-focused (de Rivera & Grinkis, 1986; Storm & Storm,

1987). This other- and self-appraisal differentiation maps onto communion and agency motivations, respectively (Bakan, 1966; Helgeson, 1994; Wiggins, 1991).

A closer look at the functions of gratitude, compassion, and pride also reveals patterning suggesting differential links to communion and agency motivations. Specifically, compassion and gratitude motivate building social connections (e.g., gratitude: Algoe, 2012;

Bartlett et al., 2012; Williams & Bartlett, 2015; compassion: see Batson & Shaw, 1991 for a review; Condon & DeSteno, 2011; Goetz et al., 2010; Harmon-Jones, Peterson, & Vaughn,

2003; Lim & Desteno, 2016; Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011; see DeSteno et al., 2016 for an overview), which reflects communal orientation. Conversely, pride functions to promote goal-perseverance, self-control, and leadership (e.g., Carver et al., 2010; Williams &

DeSteno, 2008), all of which are related to agency motivation.

The mapping of pride to agency motivation and gratitude and compassion to communion motivation does not occur at the exclusion of other links. That is, gratitude and compassion may promote agency motivation and pride may promote communion motivation.

For example, pride’s status-attainment functions may involve connecting with and helping others (communion motivation) (Michie, 2009; see Tracy & Robins, 2007 for a review).

When individuals feel grateful or compassionate, they may experience a sense of agency motivation associated with successfully enacting the relevant functional behaviours (e.g., prosocial helping; Bandura, 1977; cf. Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2014 for gratitude). I expected these cross-links to complement but be relatively weaker than the primary posited links between gratitude, compassion and communion motivation, and pride and agency 15

motivation. Indeed, research that has included measures of both communion motivation (e.g., affiliation) and agency motivation (e.g., dominance) has found stronger relationships between both gratitude and compassion to communion motivation (Jordan, Masters, Hooker, Ruiz, &

Smith, 2014). Similarly, the relatively stronger contribution of pride to agency motivation is supported by evidence that pride more strongly correlates with constructs related to agency motivation (e.g., conscientiousness) than constructs related to communion motivation (e.g., agreeableness) (Tracy & Robins, 2007).

Agency, Communion, and Eudaimonic Wellbeing

In the proposed model, communion and agency motivations are posited to contribute to EWB in distinct ways, as highlighted in the dashed box in Figure 1b: agency motivation primarily contributes to self-focused EWB whereas communion motivation primarily contributes to other-focused EWB.

Communion motivation

Gratitude

Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Compassion

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 1b. Proposed model of the relationships between motivations, and eudaimonic wellbeing, highlighting links between motivations and EWB subtypes. Stronger lines represent hypothetically stronger links.

On the link between agency and self-focused EWB, many agentic constructs positively relate to self-esteem (e.g., power motives: Aspden, Ingledew, & Parkinson, 2012; dominance and achievement motives: Nir & Neumann, 1990; self-assertive behaviours:

Whitley, 1983). Turning to the posited relationship between communion motivation and other-focused EWB, communion motivation is negatively related to anxious and avoidant attachment styles (Hagemeyer & Neyer, 2012) and positively related to relationship satisfaction (Hagemeyer & Neyer, 2012; see Helgeson, 1994 for a review). Additionally, a two-step link appears to indirectly connect communion to relationship satisfaction: communion correlates with the personality trait of agreeableness (Blackburn, Renwick,

Donnelly, & Logan, 2004; Digman, 1997), and agreeableness with relationship satisfaction

(Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2010).

The proposed patterning between motivations and subtypes of EWB is directly supported by research comparing the relative strengths of these paths. Specifically, communion motivation exerts a stronger influence on other-focused than self-focused EWB

(Helgeson & Palladino, 2012; Grossbaum & Bates, 2002), whereas the converse is true for agency motives (Bauer & McAdams, 2010; Whitley, 1983; cf. Grossbaum & Bates, 2002).

As is the case with links between emotions and motivations, these proposed primary links between motivations and EWB subtypes don’t preclude crossover. For example, agency motivation might contribute to other-focused EWB, given that many forms of achievement

(e.g., teamwork) involve the development of positive relationships (Sheng, Tian, & Chen,

2010). Likewise, communion motivation could promote self-focused EWB insofar as caring for others could contribute to an individual’s eudaimonic sense of purpose in life (Schwartz,

Keyl, Marcum, & Bode, 2009). As such the proposed model includes cross-links, though these were hypothesised to be weaker.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

Aim

The aim of the present research was to test a novel model predicting relationships between three discrete positive emotions (gratitude, compassion, and pride) and self-focused and other-focused subtypes of EWB. As depicted in Figure 1, these links are posited to be causally explained through each emotion’s effects on communion and agency motivations.

Specifically, the model posits that pride should relate positively to self-focused EWB due to its influence on agency motivation, whereas compassion and gratitude should relate positively to other-focused EWB because of their effects on communion motivation.

Significance of Research

A synopsis of the importance of the current research can be assembled around both theoretical and practical themes. Turning first to theoretical significance, the current research has the potential to highlight distinct routes via which positive emotions build EWB. While extant evidence and theory indirectly supports this model, the posited links between emotions, motivations, and EWB have yet to be tested empirically. The present research aligns with recent trends in affective science to differentiate positive emotions (e.g.,

Griskevicius, Shiota, & Neufeld, 2010; Griskevicius, Shiota, & Nowlis, 2010; Sauter, 2010;

Shiota et al., 2014; Tong, 2015). Further, and importantly, the present research simultaneously considered multiple discrete positive emotions. Given that existing work relating gratitude to EWB has not accounted for the influence of other discrete positive emotions (Algoe et al., 2008; Macaskill & Denovan, 2014; Ruini & Vescovelli, 2013; Wood et al., 2009) and limited research to date has directly examined compassion and pride in relation to EWB, it is of clear importance to establish the relative impact of the three focal emotions on motivations and EWB. Indeed, pilot work I conducted confirmed that the three focal emotions correlated positively with one another (rs = .27-.50; Barrett-Cheetham & 18

Williams, 2016). Therefore, the estimates produced for the link between each of these three emotions and motivations and EWB subtypes account for their shared relationship with other focal emotions.

This research also carries the potential to inform best practice when implementing wellbeing interventions. Robust evidence supports the efficacy of promoting positive emotions collectively as a route to enhance wellbeing (Cappellen, Toth-Gauthier, Saroglou,

& Fredrickson, 2016; Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Fredrickson et al., 2008). However, aside from gratitude interventions (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh, Kashdan, Ozimkowski, &

Miller, 2009; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005), few established wellbeing interventions target other discrete positive emotions, such as pride and compassion (cf. Bach

& Guse, 2015 for the case of compassion). The current research might provide the impetus to develop such discretely-oriented interventions. Additionally, the findings of the current research may prompt development of tailored interventions for increased efficacy. For instance, pride-oriented interventions could be deployed to individuals who experience a paucity of self-focused EWB, whereas gratitude- or compassion-oriented interventions could be useful in the face of other-focused EWB deficits. These possibilities will be addressed further in Chapter 8 (General Discussion).

Methodological Overview

This section provides a broad overview of several aspects of the methodology employed across the nine studies presented in this dissertation: sampling, state vs. trait level of analysis, emotion manipulation and measurement, motivation measurement, wellbeing measurement, and analytic approach. See Table 1 for an overview of the nine studies.

In addition to measures of emotion, motivation and EWB, participants completed a number of other measures in the nine studies reported herein, though these measures are not

related to the aim of testing the proposed model and thus not discussed further. Details on these measures and resulting data can be requested from the PhD candidate.

Table 1

Study Design across Studies 1a-5b

Study Sample Type State vs Trait Emotion Motivation Wellbeing Manipulation/Measurement Measurement Measurement 1a Online community Trait Measured emotions Self-report Self-report 1b Face-to-face Trait Measured emotions Self-report Self-report 2a Online community Trait Measured emotions NA NA community 2b Online community Trait Measured emotions Self-report Self-report 3 Undergraduate State Interpersonal induction Self-report Self-report 4a Undergraduate State Vignette induction Self-report Self-report 4b Undergraduate State Vignette induction Self-report Self-report 5a Undergraduate State Autobiographical recall Behavioural Self-report 5b Undergraduate State Vignette induction Behavioural Self-report

Sampling

A range of samples were used across the nine studies. Specifically, I sampled from three populations: undergraduate students at a large Australian university, users of an online crowd-sourcing platform based in the United States, and Australian community members.

Australian undergraduate university student participants, who received course credit in exchange for participation, represent the most cost-effective recruitment method. Samples recruited via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk, a US-based crowd-sources platform, are typically more diverse across several demographic variables (e.g., age, ethnicity) than the undergraduate student samples, though unlikely to be perfectly representative of the US population (e.g., Blacks are typically underrepresented: Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; and

Mechanical Turk users are more educated than the general population: Paolacci, Chandler, &

Ipeirotis, 2010). Data sourced from Mechanical Turk is cost-effective, with compensation approximating minimum wage, and high-quality (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011;

Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Finally, for Study 1b, where strict sampling criteria were implemented, members of the Sydney-area community were required to complete the study in-person.

These three sampling approaches afford more robust inferences regarding the validity of the model than if only a single avenue of recruitment was deployed. Should the model hold across samples drawn from these three populations, it would result in stronger conclusions regarding the generalisability of the findings.

State versus Trait Levels of Analysis

All three categories of variables (positive emotions, motivations, and EWB) can be measured at different levels of experience: at the dispositional level, which captures trait-like tendencies that are relatively stable over time, or at the state level, which captures relatively short-duration, situationally-specific experiences. In line with suggestions that inquiry into

22 psychological phenomena will benefit from the study of both state and trait levels of experience (Rosenberg, 1998; Nezlek et al., 2016; Watkins et al., 2003), the current research includes both levels of analysis on a study-by-study basis. This dual methodological approach enables more robust generalisations of the constructs at hand should the proposed model hold across both dispositional and state levels.

Although it is common in the literature for emotions and motivations to be studied at both levels of experience (state emotion: Emmons & McCullough, 2003; trait emotion:

McCullough et al., 2002; state motivation: Williams & DeSteno, 2008; trait motivation:

Heckert et al., 1999), EWB, at least when treated as an outcome rather than a process, is typically conceived as dispositional or trait-like (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Wood et al., 2009). However, as briefly discussed above, it is indeed possible to experience augmented

EWB in a given moment (Greenberg et al., 1992; Klar & Kasser, 2009; Reis, Sheldon, Gable,

Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sprecher & Fehr, 2006).

Adoption of state or trait levels of analysis guides different methodological designs.

Experimental designs were employed to assess state level of experience and cross-sectional designs were employed to capture trait level experiences.

Emotion Manipulation and Measurement

When examining the model at the state level of experience, the three focal positive emotions were manipulated via two main methods: interpersonal inductions and vignettes.

Interpersonal inductions involved the elicitation of emotions in participants via staged interactions with a researcher and a confederate research assistant. For example, the compassion induction exposes the participant to a fellow university student (who is actually a confederate) who has recently found out that their brother has cancer (Condon & DeSteno,

2011). Established interpersonal inductions were also used for pride (Williams & DeSteno,

2008) and gratitude (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006). Interpersonal inductions are the most

23 ecologically-valid way to induce emotions that are particularly socially-oriented (Herrald &

Tomaka, 2002; Williams & DeSteno, 2008), but given the necessity of confederates, they are resource-intensive and require elaborate scripts and deception. As such, this approach was adopted only in Study 3.

Vignettes represent a less resource-intensive approach to emotion induction. Vignettes have been successfully deployed to induce a wide range of socially-oriented emotions

(Hemenover & Zhang, 2004; Wood, Maltby, Stewart, Linley, & Joseph, 2008). Vignettes are relatively controlled compared to the other common non-interpersonal induction method: autobiographical recall. The idiosyncratic nature of memories (McCullough et al., 2001) introduces a large amount of variance to the induction. Vignette approaches were deployed in

Studies 4a, 4b, and 5b.

Across all studies deploying state-level manipulations, the success of each was checked by asking participants to self-report their current feelings on a range of adjectives

(e.g., compassionate and sympathetic). This approach is commonplace in affective science.

While more objective measures are available (e.g., psychophysiological responses), evidence is sparse as to whether they can differentiate between the focal emotions in this research specifically (cf. for the case of pride compared to interest, joy, and surprise: Kreibig,

Gendolla, & Scherer, 2010; cf. for compassion compared to pride and inspiration: Stellar,

Cohen, Oveis, & Keltner, 2015). Indeed, to my knowledge, no research exists that compares the physiological profiles of moral elevation, admiration, or gratitude to other discrete positive emotions.

Turning to the measurement of the focal emotions at the dispositional level (Studies

1a, 1b, 2b), previously validated self-report measures were used such as the Dispositional

Positive Emotion Scale (DPES; Shiota et al., 2006) and the Gratitude Questionnaire-6 (GQ-6;

McCullough et al., 2002). Both of these scales have been successfully deployed in the types

24 of samples used in the present research (e.g., university students: Gruber, Oveis, Keltner, &

Johnson, 2011; adult community samples: Lim & Desteno, 2016).

In all dissertation studies, measures of generalised positivity were included in order to statistically dissociate the effects of the focal positive emotions from simply feeling a generalised positive affective state. The inclusion of a general measure of positivity is important as all three focal emotions are correlated with positivity (gratitude: McCullough et al., 2002; compassion: Engen & Singer, 2015; pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Further, according to both the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998) and the construal approach to happiness (Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998), generalised positivity predicts EWB. Moreover, although positivity can be detrimental to agency motivation (i.e., mood-as-input research: Martin, Ward, Achee, & Wyer, 1993; see Vlaeyen & Morley, 2004 for a review), it is beneficial for communal motivation (Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988;

Whelan & Zelenski, 2012). Inclusion of a measure of generalised positivity assists in reducing the alternative conclusion that positivity rather than the focal discrete emotions account for variation in motivations and EWB subtypes.

Motivation Measurement

For the majority of studies, communion and agency motivations were assessed via validated self-report measures such as the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1984) and the Needs Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al., 1999). These motivation measures are typically used to assess trait motivation or how one generally behaves and were deployed as originally developed in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b; in studies examining the model at a state level (Studies 3, 4a, and 4b) scale items were adapted to reflect motivational states experienced in the current moment (e.g., by “right now” to the question stem).

There are, of course, other valid ways to assess motivation besides self-report measures. Studies 5a and 5b measured motivation behaviourally. Indeed past emotion

25 research has directly measured the functional behaviours stemming from pride, gratitude and compassion (e.g., goal perseverance: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009; helping behaviour:

Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; punishment reduction: Condon & DeSteno, 2011; affiliation:

Williams & Bartlett, 2015).

Wellbeing Measurement

In all studies, EWB was assessed using Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales.

Just as with the motivation scales, these scales were originally designed to measure trait levels of EWB and deployed as such in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b. For state studies (Studies 3,

4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b), they were adapted to capture immediate feelings of EWB (see Bosson,

Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005 for a similar approach). Measurement approaches that move away from a reliance on self-report are plausible (e.g., objectively measuring level of career seniority as an indicator of personal growth). Yet, by definition, EWB comprises one’s subjective perception of self-actualisation (Keyes et al., 2002; Ryff, 1995) and is therefore most appropriately assessed via self-report measures (Abele, Hagmaier, & Spurk, 2016;

Spector, 2011).

Analytic Strategy

Assessment of the adequacy of the proposed model was achieved via structural equation modelling. Of core import were estimates of the total effect of each focal emotion on each EWB subtype as well as estimates of indirect effects between each focal emotion and each EWB subtype via communion and agency motivation.

Specifically, the fully-saturated model depicted in Figure 1 was tested using the path analysis function in Mplus (version 7.4; Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Maximum likelihood estimation was employed (Hoyle, 2000; Kline, 2011). Estimates of indirect and total effects were bootstrapped in Mplus using 1000 bias-corrected resamples (Mackinnon, Lockwood, &

Williams, 2004). Both yielded standardised point estimates, significance levels, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Given that the model was fully-saturated, goodness-of-fit indices were irrelevant; in such cases, focus is placed on the significance and relative magnitude of the various path estimates (Kline, 2011). First, total effect estimates of each positive emotion on each subtype of EWB were evaluated via 95% CIs. Total effects in this model reflect the combined estimate of the relevant direct (emotion  EWB) and two indirect effects (emotion  motivations  EWB). Follow-up comparisons between total effects tested the relative strength of total effects in selected cases so as to assess the proposed model (e.g., that the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB would be stronger than the total effect of gratitude on self-focused EWB). Using the procedure described by Lau and Cheung (2012) and Preacher and Hayes (2008), new parameters were created (using the Mplus model constraint function) that represented total effects. One effect was then subtracted from another to create a new difference score parameter and a 95% CI was estimated around this difference score. CIs not containing zero were interpreted as evidence that one effect was significantly different than the other. In line with both Lau and Cheung (2012) and Preacher and Hayes (2008), these comparisons were conducted on unstandardised estimates given that equivalent variables were assessed on the same scale across the two mediational chains in a given study (e.g., all emotions were measured on the same scale, as were motivations and the subtypes of wellbeing).

Next, after assessing component paths (emotions  motivations; motivations 

EWB), relevant comparisons (e.g., whether pride had a stronger link to agency than communion motivation) were conducted using the model constraint procedure described above (Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Finally, a similar comparison approach was deployed with the indirect effects.

While I argue that the proposed model reflects an accurate portrayal of the psychological processes via which dispositional emotions give rise to motivations, I acknowledge that the reverse might be true. That is, it could be the case that general dispositions towards communion and agency give rise to the tendencies to experience discrete positive emotions, which in turn impact EWB subtypes. In order to test this possibility, a model with communion and agency motivations distally predicting the two types of wellbeing via the dispositional positive emotions was estimated for Studies at the trait level of experience (1a, 1b, and 2b). The proposed and alternative model were then evaluated following guidelines for comparing competing models (Kass & Raftery, 1995; Raftery,

1995). Specifically, the model with the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was given preference.

In structural equation modelling, an important decision concerns how to model error variance (also referred to as disturbance or residual variance). Error variance represents unexplained variance in endogenous variables – those variables predicted in the model

(Byrne, 2013; Kline, 2011). Theoretically, error variance can be viewed as an estimate of all unmeasured causes of the endogenous variable. In the present research, error variances were allowed to correlate within a particular stage of the model (e.g., the error variances of the two motivations were allowed to correlate). Although adopting this approach is a subject of debate, this strategy is considered appropriate if theoretically justifiable (Byrne, 2013; Cole,

Ciesla, & Steiger, 2007; Kline, 2011). Often, this theoretical justification stems from the presumption that the constructs at hand share at least one common omitted cause (Kline,

2011). This is likely the case when examining the focal positive emotions, given that pride, gratitude, and compassion often correlate (rs = .27-.50; Barrett-Cheetham & Williams, 2016).

The same can be said for communion and agency motivations (e.g., r = 0.77; Grossbaum &

Bates, 2002), as well as for self- and other-focused EWB (e.g., r = 0.30; Burns & Machin,

2009).

Gender Effects

In light of documented gender differences on measured constructs (e.g., positive emotions: Thompson, Peura, & Gayton, 2015; communion and agency motivations:

Helgeson, 1994; Suh, Moskowitz, Fournier, & Zuroff, 2004; self- and other-focused EWB:

(Lindfors, Berntsson, & Lundberg, 2006; Yoo, Bartle-Haring, Day, & Gangamma, 2014), an exploratory extension of the proposed model with gender as a covariate was conducted across all studies to rule out the possibility that gender accounted for observed findings.

Structure of Thesis

The state versus trait distinction provides a basis for the structure of the remaining chapters. Chapter 2 reports tests of the proposed model at the trait level of experience in a general community sample (Study 1a) and a sample of participants who had recently experienced a stressful event (Study1b). Still at the trait level, Chapter 3 reports an extension of the original model to two additional positive emotions: moral elevation and admiration. A trait scale of these emotions was developed for the purposes of this research (Study 2a) and subsequently deployed to test the model (Study 2b).

Moving onto the state level of analysis, Chapter 4 reports a single study (Study 3) that tests the original model (gratitude, compassion, and pride) using an interpersonal induction approach. Chapter 5 reports studies extending the model to moral elevation and admiration at a state-level (Study 4a and 4b, respectively). Still at the state level, Chapter 6 reports two studies that adopted a behavioural measure of communion and agency motivations rather than self-report measures (Studies 5a and 5b). In Chapter 7, a meta-analysis was conducted across the state and trait studies. General discussion and final conclusions appear in the final chapter

(Chapter 8).

2 Chapter 2: Gratitude, Compassion, and Pride: The Trait Level of Experience

This chapter reports two studies that examined the proposed model at the trait level of experience in two different samples: a general community sample recruited online (Study 1a) and a sample of Australian community members who recently experienced stressful life events that may have challenged their eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB; Study 1b). Both Studies

1a and 1b used a cross-sectional design employing self-report measures of positive emotions, motivations, and EWB subtypes. Contentment was measured in both studies in order to dissociate the effects of gratitude, compassion, and pride on motivations and EWB subtypes from those effects stemming from generalised positivity. The results of Study 1a have been published in the Journal of Positive Psychology (Elizabeth Barrett-Cheetham, Williams, &

Bednall, 2016).

STUDY 1A

Study 1a examined the influence of three discrete positive emotions (gratitude, compassion, and pride) on two subtypes of EWB (self- and other-focused). As depicted in

Figure 1 (pg. 3), these links are posited to be causally explained through each emotion’s effects on communion and agency motivations. Specifically, the model posits that pride should primarily contribute positively to self-focused EWB due to its influence on agency motivation, whereas compassion and gratitude should primarily influence other-focused

EWB because of their effects on communion motivation. While extant evidence and theory, as outlined in Chapter 1, indirectly supports this model, the posited links between emotions, motivations, and EWB subtypes have yet to be tested empirically. Study 1a provided the first attempt at redressing this gap.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Three hundred and eleven participants recruited via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk website completed the study online in exchange for a small monetary reimbursement. Data from 35 participants were excluded on the basis of incorrectly answering a question aimed to screen for attention (i.e., participants who failed to select two options [purple and none] as instructed to in a block of text above a question asking them to choose their favourite color).

Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 276 participants (Mage = 37.18, SDage =

13.61). The majority of participants were female (63%) and self-reported as Caucasian/White

(86%).

Participants completed measures of dispositional positive emotions, in randomised order, prior to measures of communion and agency motivations. Finally, participants completed measures of self- and other-focused EWB before providing demographic information.

Measures

Dispositional positive emotions. Dispositional compassion, pride, and contentment were assessed using the relevant subscales of the Dispositional Positive Emotions Scales

(DPES; Shiota et al., 2006). Participants completed the compassion (e.g., “I am a very compassionate person”), pride (e.g., “I feel good about myself”), and contentment (e.g., “I am at peace with my life”) subscales on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Dispositional contentment was measured to dissociate the effects of the focal positive emotions from generalised positivity. Ratings were averaged to form dispositional compassion, pride, and contentment indices ( = .91, .84, and .94, respectively).

Dispositional gratitude was assessed using the Gratitude Questionnaire-6 (GQ-6;

McCullough et al., 2002). This scale measures the trait-like tendency to experience gratitude

31 with regard to intensity (e.g., “I feel thankful for what I have received in life”), frequency

(e.g., “If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list”) and density (e.g., “I am grateful to a wide variety of people”). Participants rated six items on 7- point scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), which were subsequently averaged to form a dispositional gratitude score ( = .91).

Communion and agency motivations. The Personality Research Form (PRF;

Jackson, 1984) was used to assess communion and agency motivations. The achievement

(e.g., “I enjoy difficult work”) and dominance (e.g., “I feel confident when directing the activities of other”) subscales together assess agency motivation, whereas the nurturance

(e.g., “It is very important to me to show people I am interested in their troubles”) and affiliation (e.g., “I try to be in the company of friends as much as possible”) subscales together assess communion motivation (Beck & Miller, 2000; Grossbaum & Bates, 2002;

McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, & Day, 1996). Participants indicated responses using a true or false format. Scores were summed to form communion and agency motivations indices

( = .87 and .90, respectively).

Self- and other-focused EWB. Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales were utilised to assess self- and other-focused EWB. The 9-item version of each scale was used.

Specifically, the environmental mastery (e.g., “In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live”), personal growth (e.g., “For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing and growth”), purpose in life (e.g., “Some people wander aimlessly through life but I am not one of them”), and self-acceptance (e.g., “I like most aspects of my personality”) subscales were averaged to form a self-focused EWB index ( = .95; Burns &

Machin, 2010, 2012). Items on the positive relations with others subscale (e.g., “People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others”) were averaged

32 to form an other-focused EWB index ( = .89). All items were rated on scales ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Analytic Strategy

As outlined in Chapter 1, a fully saturated model was tested using the path analysis function in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Maximum likelihood estimation was employed and estimates of indirect and total effects were bootstrapped in Mplus using 1000 bias- corrected resamples (Mackinnon et al., 2004)

Three sets of analyses were conducted: total effects, component paths, and indirect effects. Once the significance of these effects was assessed, relevant comparisons (e.g., whether pride more strongly predicted self- than other-focused EWB) were also conducted using the difference score procedure (Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Additionally, the proposed model was compared to an alternative model where communion and agency motivation predicted discrete positive emotions.

With regard to missing data, the default Mplus option for maximum likelihood estimation was employed (i.e., pairwise deletion). Of the 276 participants, 274 were complete observations, and two participants had either one or two missing variables.

Results

Model Testing

As can be seen in Table 2, many of the constructs were strongly correlated with one another, albeit below the suggested .90 cut-off for collinearity (Kline, 2011). To further alleviate the possibility of multicollinearity, tolerance statistics were computed. Tolerance statistics indicate the proportion of standardised variance that is unique to that variable (i.e., not explained by the other variables; Kline, 2011). Tolerance statistics were produced for each of the following possible set of regressions: 1) positive emotions to agency motivation,

2) positive emotions to communion motivation, 3) positive emotions and motivations to self-

33 focused EWB, and 4) positive emotions and motivations to other-focused EWB. All tolerance values were above .10 (Kline, 2011), further assuaging multicollinearity concerns.

Descriptive statistics appear in Table 2. Significant standardised estimates of the fully saturated model appear in Figure 2.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Measured Constructs (Study 1a)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gratitude 5.65 1.17 - 2. Compassion 5.60 1.08 .44 - 3. Pride 4.97 1.13 .61 .39 - 4. Contentment 4.81 1.45 .67 .32 .78 - 5. Communion Motivation 17.75 7.43 .43 .59 .49 .45 - 6. Agency Motivation 17.95 6.67 .22 .24 .52 .29 .40 - 7. Other-focused EWB 4.18 1.10 .61 .47 .66 .63 .73 .37 - 8. Self-focused EWB 4.33 0.87 .66 .30 .77 .77 .51 .47 .74 Note. All correlations significant at p < .05.

Communion motivation

Gratitude .19 .51 Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

.46

Compassion .23

.24 .38

.19 -.13

.23 .15 Pride .11†

.75 .24

Self-focused .13† eudaimonic wellbeing .36 .16 Contentment -.24 Agency motivation

Figure 2. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from Study 1a. All listed estimates were significant at p < .01, unless marked with † suggesting significance at p < .10. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variance.

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. As predicted, the four total effects of pride and gratitude on both self- and other- focused EWB were significant and nonzero (pride to self- focused EWB: β = 0.38, p < .001, 95% CI [0.28, 0.50]; pride to other-focused EWB:

β = 0.32, p <.001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.45]; gratitude to self-focused EWB: β = 0.22, p < .001,

95% CI [0.12, 0.34]; gratitude to other-focused EWB: β = 0.20 p = .001, 95% CI [0.08, 0.32].

The total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB was significant (β = 0.20, p < .001,

95% CI [0.08, 0.29]), as expected. The total effect of compassion on self-focused EWB, which was anticipated to be relatively weaker than that to other-focused EWB, was not significant (p = .21). The total effects of contentment on both self-focused EWB (β = 0.34, p

< .001, 95% CI [0.21, 0.47]) and other-focused EWB (β = 0.18, p = .01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31]) were significant.

The fact that both pride and gratitude contributed to both subtypes of EWB raises the question of the relative strengths of these total effects. That is, were the primary predicted total effects stronger than the weaker, cross-linked predicted effects? Against expectations, the total effect of pride on self-focused EWB was not significantly stronger as compared to the total effect on other-focused EWB (p = .80). Similarly, the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB was not significantly stronger as compared to the total effect on self- focused EWB (p = .58).

Emotions to motivations. With regard to the links from emotion to motivations, as expected and as displayed in Figure 2, pride positively predicted agency motivation and compassion positively predicted communion motivation. The anticipated link between gratitude and communion motivation was not significant. Contentment negatively predicted agency motivation and marginally positively predicted communion motivation. A cross-link was observed between pride and communion motivation, though this was relatively weaker

37 than the primary link between pride and agency, as expected and as evidenced by a significant difference score, b = 3.14, p < .001, 95% CI [1.78, 4.49].

Motivations to EWB. With regards to the motivations to EWB subtypes links, communion motivation had a relatively stronger link on other-focused EWB than it did to self-focused EWB, b = 0.06, p < .001, 95% CI [0.05, 0.07]. The primary predicted pathway between agency motivation and self-focused EWB was observed.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Five indirect effects from emotions to EWB subtypes via motivations were significant: 1) compassion to other-focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.31], 2) pride to self-focused

EWB via agency motivation, β = 0.12, p = .001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.20], 3) pride to other- focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.10 p =.01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.18], 4) pride to self-focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.03, p = .03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.06], and 5) compassion to self-focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.07, p = .001, 95% CI

[0.03, 0.11], The first two of these indirect effects, which were also the strongest of the six, provide direct support for the proposed model. The following indirect effects were observed for contentment: 1) contentment to self-focused EWB via agency motivation, β = -0.04, p =

.03, 95% CI [-0.09, -0.01], 2) contentment to self-focused EWB via communion motivation

(marginally significant), β = 0.02, p = .097, 95% CI [0.00, 0.05], and 3) contentment to other- focused EWB via communion motivation (marginally significant), β = 0.07, p = .07, 95% CI

[0.00, 0.14].

The presence of these indirect effects begs the question of the relative strengths of the primary predicted pathways compared to the cross-link pathways. First, a test of whether agency or communion was a stronger mediator of the relationship between pride and self- focused EWB favored agency (indirect path 2 vs. indirect path 4; b = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02,

0.13], p = .01). Second, other-focused EWB was more strongly predicted by the pathway

38 involving compassion and communion than the corresponding path to self-focused EWB

(indirect path 1 vs. indirect path 5; b = 0.19, 95% CI [0.13, 0.24], p < .001). Next, the path stemming from compassion to other-focused EWB via communion motivation was stronger than the corresponding path stemming from pride (indirect effect 1 vs. indirect effect 3; b =

0.14, 95% CI [0.05, 0.24], p = .003). Finally, compassion more strongly predicted other- focused EWB via communion than did contentment (b = 0.18, 95% CI [0.12, 0.28], p < .001) and pride more strongly predicted self-focused EWB via agency than did contentment (b =

0.12, 95% CI [0.06, 0.20], p = .001). Note that this latter comparison was conducted on the actual effect sizes themselves (i.e., taking into account the positive or negative direction) rather than the absolute magnitudes (i.e., ignoring the direction) given that the contentment pathway was negative. The results of these comparisons supported the proposed model; the primary predicted indirect paths were strongest compared to cross-linked paths.

Gender effects. Although gender differences emerged for both compassion and communion motivation (compassion: Mfemales = 5.80, SDfemales = 0.95, Mmales = 5.22,

SDmales = 1.19, t(168.16equal variances not assumed) = 4.19, p < .001, d = 0.54; communion motivation: Mfemales = 18.52, SDfemales = 7.17, Mmales = 16.21, SDmales = 7.66, t(272) = 2.50, p =

.01, d = 0.31), inclusion of gender in the model as a predictor of motivations and EWB subtypes did not substantially change the estimate of any of the paths (i.e., the largest observed difference in path estimates across the two models was 0.02). As such, gender did not appear to alter the observed links between emotions, motivations, or EWB subtypes.

Alternative Model

Following guidelines for comparing competing models (Kass & Raftery, 1995;

Raftery, 1995), I compared the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for the proposed model

(BIC = 4428.24) to that of this alternative model (BIC = 7642.20) where communion and agency motivation predict the tendencies to experience discrete positive emotions, which in

39 turn impact EWB subtypes. Relative preference for the proposed model (i.e., with emotions predicting motivations) was suggested by the lower value for the hypothesised model.

Discussion

Study 1a represents the first known analysis of the relationship between positive emotion and EWB using a differentiated emotion perspective. Specifically, a cross-sectional design enabled analysis of the relative contribution of three discrete positive emotions (i.e., gratitude, compassion, and pride) to self-focused and other-focused EWB. Further, a model wherein communion and agency motivations provide mechanisms via which the three positive emotions contribute to EWB was examined. Below, I summarise the evidence with regard to the proposed model. Discussion here is limited to points specific to Study 1a and those that bridge to Study 1b. In-depth discussion of findings appears in Chapter 8 (General

Discussion).

Evidence for the Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. Results supported many aspects of the proposed model, including total effects of emotions on EWB subtypes. Both pride and gratitude contributed to self- and other-focused EWB, and compassion to other-focused EWB. Further, many of the links between emotions and motivations, and associated indirect effects from emotions to

EWB subtypes via those motivations, were also in line with expectations. Pride contributed to self-focused EWB via its effects on agency motivation, and compassion contributed to other- focused EWB via communion motivation. While other indirect effects were observed, these two were the strongest and were two of the three primary hypothesised indirect effects.

Expected, not observed links. Although both pride and gratitude were expected to contribute to both subtypes of EWB, gratitude was expected to have a stronger influence on other-focused than self-focused EWB. The reverse pattern was expected for pride. However, total effects of each emotion on each EWB subtype were equivalent. As presented in Chapter

1, there is indeed past research suggesting that the cross-links exist. In light of the results of

Study 1a, it may be the case that pride and gratitude contribute equally to self- and other- focused wellbeing. Final deliberation on this point is withheld until the General Discussion when it could be undertaken in light of the evidence across the nine studies.

The expected total effect of compassion on self-focused EWB did not emerge.

Although compassion did have a significant indirect effect on self-focused EWB via communion motivation, the direct effect was negative. These, in essence, cancelled one another out. This suggests a dynamic whereby compassion without communion motivation may be deleterious. It is plausible that non-communal compassion resembles sadness or distress, which indeed has been documented to have negative links to self-focused EWB

(sadness: Clasen, Fisher, & Beevers, 2015; distress: Woodford, Kulick, Sinco, & Hong,

2014).

In terms of the direct links between emotion and motivations, a key aspect of the proposed model was not supported by the data: that gratitude would predict communion motivation. One reason may stem from the fact that past empirical research linking gratitude and communion (e.g., see Algoe, 2012 for a review; Bartlett et al., 2012; Williams & Bartlett,

2015) considered gratitude in isolation from compassion. Indeed, while I did observe a significant raw correlation between gratitude and communion motivation, gratitude and compassion were also significantly correlated (see Table 2). Once modeled simultaneously, compassion carried the link to communion motivation. I did observe a total effect of gratitude on both self- and other-focused EWB, raising the possibility that there are other, unmeasured mechanisms at play. Extant research points to a few possibilities, such as positive reappraisal

(Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Lambert, Graham, Fincham, & Stillman, 2009; Lambert,

Fincham, & Stillman, 2012) or optimism (Lyubomirsky, 2001; Lyubomirsky & Tucker,

1998; Wood, Froh, & Geraghty, 2010; Wood et al., 2008).

Control variable: Contentment. The impetus for including contentment in Study 1a was to dissociate the effects of the three focal emotions from generalised positivity (Gable &

Harmon-Jones, 2010; Smillie, Cooper, Wilt, & Revelle, 2012). While not the central focus, it is noteworthy that contentment negatively predicted agency motivation. Working from a perspective that contentment reflects generalised positivity (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2010;

Smillie et al., 2012), this finding is in line with a body of research that suggests positivity is detrimental to agency motivation (i.e., mood-as-input research: Martin et al., 1993; see

Vlaeyen & Morley, 2004 for a review). An alternative perspective is that contentment is a discrete emotion in its own right (Fredrickson, 1998; Shiota et al., 2006). In this view, contentment arises when demands on resources are low and/or current resources meet or exceed demands (Fredrickson, 1998; Shiota et al., 2006). Given this eliciting environment, contentment functions to promote savouring of current circumstances (Fredrickson, 1998).

Indeed, it may be the case that the savouring function of contentment (Fredrickson, 1998;

Shiota et al., 2006) is what undermines agentic motivation.

Conclusion

In summary, although some unexpected findings emerged, many of my primary hypotheses (i.e., the bolded lines in Figure 1) were supported. Both pride and gratitude contributed to self- and other-focused EWB, and compassion to other-focused EWB.

Additionally, two of the three primary hypothesised indirect effects (pride agency self- focused EWB and compassion communion other-focused EWB) were the strongest in the model. These findings also raise questions in need of further exploration, such as whether these model pathways would hold in individuals with challenged levels of EWB. Indeed, such individuals would be ideal candidates for targeted positive emotion interventions such as those this research might inspire. Study 1b was therefore designed to test the proposed model in samples of participants with challenged self- or other-focused EWB for whom particular

42 model pathways would be most relevant (i.e., the pathways flowing from pride in the case of individuals who have low self-focused EWB and the pathways flowing from gratitude and compassion in the case of individuals who have low other-focused EWB).

STUDY 1B

The aims of Study 1b were twofold. First, Study 1b represented an attempt to replicate the proposed model at the trait level of experience in other community samples. Second,

Study 1b aimed to include expanded analysis of sample-specific hypotheses derived from the nature of the community samples recruited. To achieve these aims, two subsamples were recruited. One subsample consisted of community members who had been fired or made redundant from employment during the past six months. Past research suggests that such a circumstance reduces self-focused EWB (e.g., decreased self-esteem: Anaf, Baum, Newman,

Ziersch, & Jolley, 2013; Gowan, 2012; Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, & Joseph, 1981; lowered mastery/perceived control: Moore, Grunberg, Greenberg, & Sikora, 2007; Pearlin et al., 1981; Vander Elst et al., 2014). The other subsample consisted of community members who had lost a close family member/friend or experienced a divorce or separation during the past six months. Past research suggests that such circumstances reduce other-focused EWB

(e.g., divorce and loneliness: Halford & Sweeper, 2013; Nicolaisen & Thorsen, 2014; loss of a significant other and loneliness: Fried et al., 2015). I will first discuss model replication in the additional community subsamples (Aim 1) before turning to relative differences in model pathways across the two subsamples (Aim 2).

Aim 1: Replication of Model

The findings of Study 1a highlight the potential utility of employing a targeted pride- or compassion-based intervention depending on whether individuals are experiencing low levels of self- or other-focused EWB respectively. An important next step is therefore to assess the proposed model in samples who match this description (i.e., who have challenged

43 levels of self- or other-focused EWB). Indeed, such samples are likely to experience elevated stress levels compared to the undergraduate sample recruited for Study 1a (Gotiman &

Levenson, 2000; Ryff, Keyes, & Hughes, 2003; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De Witte, &

Deci, 2004). Although stress undermines wellbeing generally (Gotiman & Levenson, 2000;

(Ryff et al., 2003); Vansteenkiste et al., 2004) and the experience of positive emotion

(Conway, Slavich, & Hammen, 2015; Costanzo, Stawski, Ryff, Coe, & Almeida, 2012), there is a paucity of research exploring how discrete emotions might related to subtypes of EWB amongst stressed samples. I will now review research that speaks to the links between emotions and EWB during stressful circumstances.

Positive Emotions to EWB

Research testing the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson,

1998) provides indirect evidence that the proposed links from emotions to EWB subtypes should hold amongst individuals currently experiencing stressful circumstances. Specifically, the frequent experience of positive emotion was positively associated with a range of wellbeing measures such as life satisfaction and optimism amongst US residents in the months following the September 11th terrorist attacks (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, &

Larkin, 2003). Similar patterns whereby positive emotions correlate positively with a range of wellbeing measures (e.g., job satsifaction and life satisfaction) have been found amongst employees in stressful occupations (e.g., police officers: Siu, Cheung, & Lui, 2015; therapists: Samios, Abel, & Rodzik, 2013), by employees who experience role overload (e.g., employees who endorse statements such as, “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done”; Gallagher & Meurs, 2015), and parents with disabled children (Trute &

Benzies, 2012; Trute, Benzies, Worthington, Reddon, & Moore, 2010).

Adopting a differentiated positive emotion perspective, gratitude in particular serves an important role to wellbeing in the face of stressors. Specifically, amongst females

44 diagnosed with breast cancer, gratitude positively predicts perceived social support (Algoe &

Stanton, 2012) and positive relations with others (Ruini & Vescovelli, 2013), both of which are components of other-focused EWB. Additonally, both dispositional and state experiences of gratitude have salutary effects on a host of EWB and hedonic wellbeing factors among war veterans (Kashdan et al., 2006).

Compassion has also been linked to EWB (e.g., a sense of personal accomplishment) in counselling professionals (Gross, 1994; Williams, 1989), who commonly experience high stress. Indeed, between 25-50% of counsellors are at a moderate risk for compassion fatigue, a state developed as a result of bearing the distress of clients (Boscarino, Figley, & Adams,

2004; Figley, 2002a, 2002b). Research could not be located that examined the relationship between pride and wellbeing during stressful circumstances, thought I note that there is also no evidence to suggest that pride would not serve a positive role.

Emotions to Motivations and Motivations to EWB

In relation to the proposed motivation mechanisms, there is a wealth of research examining the relationship between stress and motivation (e.g., Barney & Elias, 2010;

(Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013; Liu, 2015; Struthers, Perry, & Menec, 2000) but limited research that directly explores the moderating role of stress on the relationship between emotions to motivations. Nonetheless, there is no reason not to expect the emotion

 motivation and motivation  EWB links to emerge amongst samples of individuals experiencing stress.

Interim Summary: Replication of Model

The first aim of Study 1b was to replicate the model in two different community subsamples: one with challenged self-focused EWB and the second with challenged other- focused EWB. Given the cited findings on the existence of the positive relationship between positive emotion and wellbeing during stressful circumstances that would lower EWB, I

45 expected that support for the model would emerge. Specifically, across subsamples, pride was expected to relate positively to self-focused EWB due to its influence on agency motivation, whereas compassion and gratitude were expected to relate positively to other- focused EWB as a function of their effects on communion motivation

Aim 2: Sample Specificity

The second aim of Study 1b was to assess relative differences in model pathways across the two subsamples. Rationale for hypothesised sample-specific effects is drawn from the stressor-support specificity model (Cohen & McKay, 1984).

Stressor-Support Specificity Model

The stressor-support specificity model (Cohen & McKay, 1984) is a model that offers a conceptual framework from which to examine the effects of emotions on EWB. The stressor-support specificity model argues that coping resources that are matched to the demands of specific stressful events will be especially useful in increasing wellbeing. For example, supervisor support, but not support from home, was an effective buffer of reducing work-load dissatisfaction arising from negative stressors that elicited a need for supervisor support (e.g., perceived work-load fit; Larocco, House, & French, 1980).

The stressor-support specificity model is particularly well-suited to inform hypotheses about why certain emotions will be more relevant for increasing EWB across different subsamples experiencing different stressful events, given that positive emotions serve as coping resources (Fredrickson et al., 2003; Tugade, Fredrickson, & Barrett, 2004).

Specifically, separating from a spouse or losing a loved one diminishes other-focused EWB

(e.g., divorce and loneliness: Halford & Sweeper, 2013; Nicolaisen & Thorsen, 2014; loss of a significant other and loneliness: Fried et al., 2015). As such, links stemming from compassion and gratitude were expected to be relatively stronger in this subsample. Turning to the other subsample, those who had recently lost their employment, lowered self-focused

EWB was expected (e.g., job loss and decreased self-esteem: Anaf et al., 2013; Gowan, 2012;

Pearlin et al., 1981; lowered mastery/perceived control: Moore et al., 2007; Pearlin et al.,

1981; Vander Elst et al., 2014); as such, links stemming from pride were expected to be relatively stronger in this subsample. In sum, positive emotions should promote EWB particularly strongly in cases where the emotion maps on to EWB subtypes in a functional manner.

Interim Summary – Sample Specificity. In summary, despite broad evidence suggesting that self- and other-focused EWB can be expected to be predicted from positive emotions amongst stressed samples, there is reason to believe that they do so in sample- specific ways, with gratitude and compassion in particular promoting other-focused EWB amongst samples experiencing challenges to other-focused EWB and pride in particular promoting self-focused EWB amongst samples experiencing challenges to self-focused

EWB.

Present Study

In order to meet the two aims of Study 1b, two subsamples were recruited, each having experienced a different type of stressful life event. Based on extant research, it was expected that the proposed model would hold across both subsamples. Specifically, pride was expected to primarily relate positively to self-focused EWB due to its influence on agency motivation, whereas compassion and gratitude were expected to primarily relate positively to other-focused

EWB as a function of their effects on communion motivation.

Moreover, based on the stressor-support specificity model (Cohen & McKay, 1984), strengths of model pathways were expected to differ across the two subsamples as a function of their recently-experienced stressful life event. Specifically, it was expected that gratitude and compassion would contribute more strongly to other-focused EWB in the grieving/separated subsample as compared to the job loss sample. Conversely, it was expected

47 that pride would contribute more strongly to self-focused EWB in the job loss subsample as compared to the grieving/separated sample.

Method

Participants, Procedure and Measures

Participants were recruited via two main methods: advertisements on a community ad website (i.e., www.gumtree.com.au) and through a portal for community participants to sign up for research studies in the School of Psychology at the University of New South Wales.

Participants were reimbursed $15 for approximately 40 minutes of their time. Data from 11 participants were excluded due to failing to follow instructions on attention check items (i.e.,

“When you get to this item, please select True”). Additionally, 30 participants who were re- employed and three participants who were in a romantic relationship were excluded on the basis that they were inferred to have recovered from the stressful life event for which they had been recruited. There was not a relevant demographic check for grieving participants.

The final analysed sample comprised 181 participants (111 females, Mage = 27.35,

SDage = 9.43). The job loss subsample comprised 73 participants. The bereavement/separated subsample comprised 108 participants (91 and 17 participants, respectively). The majority of participants identified as Caucasian/White (37%) or Asian (48%). Average time elapsed since the stressful life event was 3.18 months for the grieving/separated sample (SD = 1.96) and

2.70 months for the job loss sample (SD = 2.19). Note that two participants from the bereavement/separated sample did not provide this information. These lengths of time did not differ significantly, Mdifference = 0.47, t(177) = 1.51, p = .13.

All of the measures used to measure the trait emotions, motivations, and EWB were the same as those used in Study 1a (s = .77- 93). In order to assess whether the two recruited subsamples were equivalent in stress levels aroused by the life event for which they had been recruited, all participants completed the stress subscale from the Copenhagen Psychosocial

Questionnaire (Pejtersen, Kristensen, Borg, & Bjorner, 2010). Items were anchored to the specific stressful life event for which participants had been recruited. For example, the original item “How often have you had problems relaxing?” was modified to “How often have you had problems relaxing because of [the termination of your employment/separation or divorce/death of your close family member/friend]”. All items were rated on a 5-point

Likert scale anchored by not at all and all the time, and were averaged to form a stress score

( = .90).

Participants completed measures of dispositional positive emotions, in randomised order, prior to measures of communion and agency motivations. Finally, participants completed self- and other-focused EWB measures before completing the stress measure and providing demographic information.

Analytic Strategy

Using the same analytic approach as used in Study 1a, a fully saturated model was tested in Mplus using maximum likelihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 2015). There was no missing data. Estimates of total effects, component paths, and indirect effects were tested and any relevant difference scores were computed (Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes,

2008). However, prior to commencing model testing, confirmation that levels of EWB subtypes were challenged in the expected direction between the two subsamples (i.e., grieving/separated sample: challenged other-focused EWB and job loss sample: challenged self-focused EWB) was achieved via independent sample t-tests.

With t-tests supporting the premise that the grieving/separated sample were experiencing relatively low levels of other-focused EWB and the job loss sample were experiencing relatively low levels of self-focused EWB, a multiple group analysis was planned to test the proposed model on the two groups of participants separately. Such a multiple group analysis produces two full sets of estimates (one for each group) and has the

49 advantage of allowing comparisons to be made on the relative strength of individual pathways across the two groups as per Aim 2.

Results

Sample Testing

The results of the independent samples t-tests indicated that the subsamples did not differ on levels of other- or self-focused EWB (p = .64, .16 respectively). As a result, testing of the hypotheses associated with Aim 2 (i.e., sample-specific path strengths) was not warranted and further analysis collapsed across the two subsamples.

In order to provide context for the interpretation of the results (i.e., to determine the characteristics of the combined sample), several post-hoc t-tests were carried out to assess relative levels of EWB and stress levels as compared to relevant reference groups/values.

First, to assess whether the sample as a whole experienced challenged levels of EWB, two one-sample t-tests (one for each EWB subtype) tested differences between the levels of EWB in the combined sample against levels observed in Study 1a (Mother-focused EWB = 4.18, Mself- focused EWB = 4.33). These tests revealed that self-focused EWB was significantly lower in the

Study 1b combined sample than in the Study 1a sample, Mdifference = -0.14, t(180) = -2.56, p = .01, 95% CI [-0.26, -0.03], but that other-focused EWB levels were equivalent, p = .25.

Second, efforts were made to assess the relative stress levels in the combined sample.

While participants reported experiencing non-zero levels of stress as evidenced by a one- sample t-test against the lowest possible score on the scale (which would correspond to responding "not at all" to all items; Mdifference = 1.71, t(179) = 23.69, p < .001, 95% CI

[1.57, 1.85]), they also indicated stress levels lower than that observed in the original scale development sample (Mdevelopment sample = 26.7, Mrescaled stress score: current sample= 57.32, as evidenced by a one-sample t-test against the mean stress level reported in Pejtersen et al.,

(2010), Mdifference = 30.62, t(180) = 16.99, p < .001. This original scale development sample

50 were working Danish adults aged between 20 and 59 selected randomly from the Danish

Centralized Civil Register,

Model Testing

Descriptive statistics and correlations between measured constructs appear in Tables

3. Additionally, significant standardised estimates appear in Figure 3. Multicollinearity was unlikely to be problematic as all tolerance statistics derived from multiple regression analyses were above .10 (Kline, 2011).

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Measured Constructs (Study 1b)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gratitude 5.42 1.04 - 2. Compassion 5.65 0.88 .32 - 3. Pride 4.81 1.05 .49 .42 - 4. Contentment 4.53 1.23 .53 .21 .75 - 5. Communion Motivation 19.41 5.49 .40 .47 .40 .36 - 6. Agency Motivation 17.65 5.43 .28 .29 .47 .31 .41 - 7. Other-focused EWB 4.26 0.94 .55 .26 .57 .57 .56 .26 - 8. Self-focused EWB 4.19 0.76 .61 .23 .70 .68 .44 .42 .75 Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05.

Communion motivation .18

.36 .15 .41 Gratitude .24 Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

-.13†

Compassion .15† .30 -.13† .31 .27 .50 -.16

.13† Pride

.38

Self-focused

.19 eudaimonic wellbeing Contentment

.48

Agency motivation

Figure 3. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths collapsed across subsamples (Study 1b). All estimates were significant at p < .05, unless marked with † suggesting significance at p < .10. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent residual error.

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. As predicted, and replicating the findings of Study

1a, the estimates of the total effects of both pride and gratitude on both self- and other- focused EWB were significant (pride to self-focused EWB: β = 0.43, p < .001, 95% CI [0.27,

0.56]; pride to other-focused EWB: β = 0.27, p = .01, 95% CI [0.08, 0.46]; gratitude to self- focused EWB: β = 0.33, p < .001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.46]; gratitude to other-focused EWB: β

= 0.30 p < .001, 95% CI [0.16, 0.44]). The total effect of compassion on self-focused EWB was marginally significant (β = -0.10, p = .07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.01]), but in the opposite direction to predictions. Moreover, the predicted primary total effect of compassion on other- focused EWB was not significant (p = .87). Consistent with Study 1a, the total effect of contentment on both self-focused EWB (β = 0.20, p = .01, 95% CI [0.07, 0.38]) and other- focused EWB (β = 0.21, p = .01, 95% CI [0.05, 0.38]) were significant.

The emergence of total effects of both pride and gratitude on both subtypes of EWB raises the question of the relative strengths of these total effects. Against expectations of the original model, but consistent with Study 1a, the total effect of pride on self-focused EWB was not stronger than that on other-focused EWB (p = .39). Similarly, the total effects of gratitude on other-focused EWB was not stronger than that on self-focused EWB (p = .56).

Emotions to motivations. With regard to the links from emotion to motivations, as expected and consistent with Study 1a, pride positively predicted agency motivation and compassion positively predicted communion motivation. While not significant in Study 1a, the anticipated link between gratitude and communion motivation was positive and significant in Study 1b. Contentment marginally predicted communion motivation.

Motivations to EWB. Turning to links between motivations and EWB subtypes, communion motivation predicted other-focused EWB, replicating Study 1a and in line with the proposed model. However, against expectations and failing to replicate Study 1a, agency motivation did not predict self-focused EWB. The anticipated cross-link between communion

motivation and self-focused EWB was significant but weaker than the primary predicted link between communion motivation and other-focused EWB, b = 1.46, p < .001, 95% CI [0.96,

1.98], as it was in Study 1a. In the opposite direction to predictions and contrary to Study 1a, agency motivation negatively predicted other-focused EWB, albeit at a marginally significant level.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Four indirect effects from emotions to EWB subtypes via motivations were significant: 1) compassion to other-focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.15, p < .001, 95% CI [0.09, 0.24], 2) compassion to self- focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.05, p = .02, 95% CI [0.02, 0.12], 3) gratitude to other-focused EWB via communion motivation (marginally significant), β = 0.07, p = .06,

95% CI [0.00, 0.16], and 4) pride to other-focused EWB via agency motivation (marginally significant), β = -0.06, p =.08, 95% CI [-0.15, -0.01]. The first two indirect effects replicated two of the six observed indirect effects in Study 1a. Additionally, contentment to other- focused EWB via communion motivation was marginally significant, β = 0.06, p = .098, 95%

CI [-0.01, 0.14].

Given that compassion positively predicted both other- and self-focused EWB via communion motivation, it was important to assess the model-specified hypothesis that the former would be stronger than the latter. As expected, the primary predicted pathway of compassion to other-focused EWB via communion motivation was stronger than the pathway to self-focused EWB, b = 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.19], p = .001.

Gender effects. As in Study 1a, gender differences were examined given documented gender differences in all categories of the model’s variables. An exploratory extension of the model was carried out with gender as a covariate predicting motivations and EWB subtypes.

Although gender differences emerged for communion motivation and other-focused EWB

(communion motivation: Mfemales = 1.62, SDfemales = 0.18, Mmales = 1.57, SDmales = 0.17,

t(178) = 2.04, p = .04, d = 0.29; other-focused EWB: Mfemales = 4.39, SDfemales = 0.97, Mmales =

4.07, SDmales = 0.86, t(178) = 2.25, p = .03, d = 0.35), inclusion of gender in the model did not substantially change the estimate of any of the paths (i.e., the largest observed difference in path estimates was 0.02), replicating the results of the corresponding analysis in Study 1a.

Alternative Model

As articulated in Study 1a, I feel that the proposed model likely reflects an accurate portrayal of the psychological processes via which emotions and motivations promote EWB.

However, I acknowledge that different combinations of the proposed pathways are possible

(i.e., dispositions towards communion and agency motivations predict tendencies to experience discrete positive emotions). To assess the relative fit of this directional model over that in the proposed model, a model with communion and agency motivations distally predicting the two types of EWB via the dispositional positive emotions was estimated. Using the guidelines provided by Kass and Raftery (1995) and Raftery (1995), I compared the

Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for the proposed model (BIC = 319.11) to the alternative model (BIC = 2483.44). Relative preference for the proposed model (i.e., with emotions predicting motivations) was suggested by the lower value for the hypothesised model, replicating the results of the analogous analysis in Study 1a.

Discussion

Study 1b had two aims: 1) to replicate the proposed model in community samples of individuals currently experiencing life stressors, and 2) to examine the relative strength of model pathways across the two community samples according to hypotheses derived from the stressor-support specificity model. To serve these aims, a sample of grieving/separated individuals was recruited on the premise that they would have reduced levels of other- focused EWB and a sample of individuals recently experienced a job loss sample was recruited on the premise that they would have reduced levels of self-focused EWB.

Despite these goals, independent sample t-tests revealed that the two samples did not differ in terms of EWB subtypes and analyses were therefore conducted on a collapsed sample. Given these results, it was not possible to examine Aim 2. As such, Aim 1 only is considered below. The combined sample was experiencing challenged levels of self-focused

EWB (as compared to participants from Study 1a), yet they also indicated stress levels lower than that observed in the original scale development sample. Note that this validation sample were not recruited with the expectation that they would be stressed, but were selected randomly from the Danish Centralized Civil Register.

Evidence for the Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. Results were consistent with many of the pathways of the proposed model. With regard to total effects, both gratitude and pride predicted other- and self-focused EWB. Additionally, contentment predicted both subtypes of EWB. All six of these total effects replicate findings from Study 1a. Two of the three primary predicted indirect effects were also observed: both gratitude and compassion predicted other-focused

EWB via communion motivation. Additionally, the secondary indirect pathway of compassion to self-focused EWB via communion motivation was also observed, however, as expected, this pathway was weaker than the corresponding pathway to other-focused EWB, replicating Study 1a.

Expected, not observed links. The total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB was not significant, despite a significant positive indirect effect via communion motivation.

As can be seen in Figure 3, the direct effect from compassion to other-focused EWB was negative. It is thus likely that these two effects (i.e., the negative direct effect and positive indirect effect) cancelled one another out in terms of the total effect. While this pattern was slightly different to that observed in Study 1a, it is consistent with the possibility that compassion without communion motivation is detrimental to other-focused EWB as it likely

resembles sadness or distress (sadness to other-focused EWB: Edmondson & Macleod, 2015; distress to other-focused EWB: Dagenais-desmarais & Savoie, 2012).

The predicted link between agency motivation and self-focused EWB (and the corresponding indirect effect of pride  agency motivation  self-focused EWB) that was observed in Study 1a was non-significant in the sample recruited for Study 1b on the basis of recently experiencing a life stressor. A reason why agency motivation promoted self-focused

EWB in Study 1a, but not Study 1b, may be that, amongst individuals with challenged self- focused EWB, communion motivation rather than agency motivation promotes EWB. Indeed, affiliating with close others is a key strategy to promote wellbeing following a stressful event

(see Karantzas & Gillath, 2017 for a review).

Unexpected, observed links. Two unexpected, observed links will be discussed in turn: the negative total effect of compassion on self-focused EWB and agency motivation negatively predicting other-focused EWB. First, the total effect of compassion on self- focused EWB was negative, albeit at a marginally significant level. This in the opposite direction to expected, despite the existence of a positive indirect effect via communion motivation. Following the same logic detailed for the negative direct link between compassion and other-focused EWB, compassion without communion motivation likely reflects sadness or distress, which has documented detrimental effects to self-focused EWB

(sadness: Clasen et al., 2015; distress: Woodford et al., 2014). The negative direct effect from compassion to self-focused EWB replicates the findings of Study 1a.

Second, agency motivation negatively predicted other-focused EWB (and thus produced the negative indirect effect of pride to other-focused EWB via agency motivation) amongst the Study 1b sample – in the reverse direction than what was expected and conflicting with findings from Study 1a. An examination of the correlation values presented in Table 2 provides some insight into this finding, as the raw correlation between these two

constructs was in fact positive (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Seeing as the corresponding link in the structural equation model was negative, it is likely that the negative relationship between agency motivation and other-focused EWB is subject to a suppressor variable/combination of suppressor variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Garbin, 2016).

Suppression occurs when the addition of a predictor, which may or may not be related to the outcome, into a regression equation increases the magnitude of the coefficient estimate of another predictor, with which the second predictor is correlated (Conger, 1974; Paulhus,

Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2004). A requirement for suppression, therefore, is that the involved independent variables are correlated. A classic example arises from the personnel selection literature. Verbal ability (the suppressor variable in this example) is not typically strongly correlated with job performance (the outcome variable in this example), but is typically correlated with job skills assessed with a paper and pencil test (the suppressed variable in this example). This shared variance between verbal ability and job skills yields reduced estimates of the relationship between job skills and job performance when verbal ability is left out of a prediction model. However, when verbal ability is included in the model, it accounts for this shared variance. As a result, the relationship between the test of job skills and job performance is enhanced in the presence of verbal ability (Cohen, Cohen,

West, & Akin, 2003). Note some statisticians have argued that the term enhancement variable would be more suitable to describe such situations (Paulhus et al., 2004). Moreover, it is important to note here that unless suppression patterns are replicated, they are likely to be of limited theoretical relevance and are possibly a “statistical fluke” (see Paulhus et al., 2004 for an overview). Going back to the example from personnel selection, the enhanced relationship between job skills and job performance when verbal ability is in the regression equation is only likely to reflect a true patterning if it is replicated.

Turning to the present data, the relationship between agency motivation and other- focused EWB may have been enhanced by a suppressor variable/combination of suppressor variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Garbin, 2016). If this is the case, and unless this suppression patterning is replicated, the observed relationship should not be interpreted as a valid representation of the true relationship between these constructs. Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted to determine which variable/s might be acting as a suppressor variable/s. This involved eliminating variables from the model and subsequently examining the resulting changes in regression coefficients for the potentially suppressed effect (i.e., agency motivation to other-focused EWB; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Garbin, 2016). When this elimation process was carried out on the current data, analyses revealed that when communion motivation was eliminated from the structural model, agency motivation no longer predicted other-focused EWB significantly (with communion motivation: β = -0.13, p = .05; without communion motivation, β = -0.02, p = .75). These results suggest that communion motivation shares variance with agency motivation (and perhaps other-focused

EWB, though this isn’t required). When communion motivation is included in the model, the relationship between agency and other-focused EWB is actually clarified/enhanced.

An equality of coefficients t-test for nested models within a single sample (Clogg,

Petkova, & Haritou, 1995) was used to test the significance of the difference in these regression coefficients. Results revealed that the cofficient of agency motivation on other- focused EWB was significantly different with and without communion motivation in the model, t(174) = -2.91, p = .01. However, note again that substantive interpretations of this suppresion pattern should be avoided until it is replicated (see Paulhus et al., 2004 for an overview).

Situational Sampling

The efficacy of recruiting separate community subsamples, each with challenged levels of other- or self-focused EWB warrants attention. If the situational sampling had been successful, two findings would have emerged: 1) the grieving/separated sample would have had lower levels of other-focused EWB compared to the job loss sample, and 2) the job loss sample would have had lower levels of self-focused EWB compared to the grieving/separated sample. Neither of these patterns emerged.

One explanation for why this may have occurred stems from the measurement of other- and self-focused EWB. Turning first to other-focused EWB, individual items in the positive relations with others subscale were broad in nature and referred to groups of close others (e.g., “I enjoy personal and mutual conversations with family members or friends” and

“I don’t have many people who want to listen when I need to talk” (reverse scored). The experience of a separation or the death of one close family member (or the loss of a job) may not have been sufficient to alter participants’ perceptions of the relations assessed by these items. Indeed, past research that formed the basis of the rationale that experiencing a separation or the death of a close loved one would reduce feelings of other-focused EWB included specific items measuring loneliness (e.g., “I find it hard to do things without a partner; Halford & Sweeper, 2013).

The measurement of self-focused EWB, however, was specific in nature and closely related to both adverse situations. For example, environmental mastery (a factor of self- focused EWB) included items such as “I feel overwhelmed by my responsibilities” and “I generally do a good job of taking care of my personal finances and affairs”. The first item would likely be reduced after the loss of a significant other and the latter item after the loss of a job.

In summary, the broad measurement of other-focused EWB coupled with the specific measurement of self-focused EWB appears to have caused the reduced perceptions of self- focused EWB across both adverse situations.

Conclusion

In summary, although there were some unexpected findings, many of the primary hypotheses (i.e., the bolded lines in Figure 1) were supported. Both pride and gratitude contributed to self- and other-focused EWB. Two of the three primary hypothesised indirect effects were observed: compassion communion other-focused EWB and gratitude

communion other-focused EWB.

CHAPTER 2 CONCLUSION

Overall, partial support was found for the proposed model across two studies utilising different samples: a general online community sample (Study 1a) and a sample of community members facing stressful circumstances (Study 1b). Findings suggest that individuals who are dispositionally-inclined to experience pride and gratitude also experience enhanced self- and other-focused EWB. Further, compassion indirectly links to other-focused EWB via communion motivation. The effect of pride on self-focused EWB is carried via agency motivation amongst general community samples, but not those experiencing stressful life events. Communion carries the effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB amongst samples experiencing stressful life events, but not amongst general community samples.

Chapter 3. Extension to Moral Elevation and Admiration: The Trait Level of Experience

Chapter 2 reported two studies (Studies 1a and 1b) that assessed the differentiated relationships among positive emotions, motivations and eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB) at the trait level of experience: dispositional tendencies that are relatively stable over time. Across these studies, trait pride and gratitude had a positive impact on self- and other-focused EWB.

Insofar as compassion motivated communion, it positively contributed to other-focused

EWB. Pride also promoted agency motivation.

To further progress the differentiated view of positive emotion, motivations, and subtypes of EWB, the studies reported here in Chapter 3 extended the proposed model to two additional positive emotions: moral elevation and admiration (see Figure 4). The aim of simultaneously considering moral elevation and admiration alongside gratitude, compassion, and pride was to enable further insight into the relative impact of positive emotions on EWB.

As will be argued below, moral elevation and admiration are posited to differentially affect motivation and facets of EWB.

In this chapter, I will first discuss moral elevation and its relationship to EWB and motivation before turning to a similar discussion of admiration. Once the rationale for extending the proposed model to include moral elevation and admiration has been elucidated,

I will report the results of two studies. Given that no appropriate trait measure of moral elevation and admiration currently exists, Study 2a aimed to develop dispositional measures of these two emotions. Study 2b subsequently deployed the newly-developed moral elevation

and admiration trait scales to test the extended proposed model alongside the original positive emotions of gratitude, compassion, and pride.

Communion motivation Gratitude

Other-focused Compassion eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride Self-focused

eudaimonic Elevation

wellbeing

Admiration

Agency motivation

Figure 4. Original proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic wellbeing, extended to include moral elevation and admiration (Study 2b). Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger links.

Moral Elevation

Moral elevation is the positive emotion experienced when individuals witness moral excellence, that is, someone doing something honourable, selfless, or good for another individual (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Haidt, 2003a). Moral elevation functions to motivate prosocial behaviour (e.g., Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Erickson & Abelson, 2012; Schnall & Roper,

2012; Schnall, Roper, & Fessler, 2010; Silvers & Haidt, 2008; Thomson, Nakamura, Siegel,

& Csikszentmihalyi, 2014;.see Thomson & Siegel, 2016 for a review).

Moral elevation is a relative newcomer to the field of affective science, with the seminal paper establishing its elicitors and functions appearing just 7 years ago (Algoe &

Haidt, 2009). Since then, research into this emotion has burgeoned. Much of this research

speaks to the potential role of moral elevation in promoting EWB. At a trait level, individuals with a higher tendency to experience moral elevation are more likely to feel close to others and experience less interpersonal conflict (Erickson & Abelson, 2012). Inducing state moral elevation in participants also causes them to endorse items such as “People are really good,” and “The world is full of kindness and generosity” (Freeman, Aquino, & McFerran, 2009).

These two items reflect other-focused EWB. As such, moral elevation was predicted to predict other-focused EWB positively.

To my knowledge, no research to date has assessed the impact of moral elevation on self-focused EWB. In order to derive hypotheses about the role of moral elevation in affecting self-focused EWB, one could draw from the fact that moral elevation belongs to the

‘other-focused’ class of emotions, alongside gratitude and compassion (Haidt, 2003b). As these latter two emotions have been linked to self-esteem (gratitude: Macaskill & Denovan,

2014; compassion: Mongrain et al., 2011; Sprecher & Fehr, 2006), one could surmise that moral elevation might as well. This logic would result in the prediction that moral elevation would positively predict self-focused EWB. Yet, as is the case with both gratitude and compassion, the link to other-focused EWB was expected to be stronger than that to self- focused wellbeing.

Recall that the proposed model posits communion and agency motivations as mediators between positive emotions and EWB. An examination of the functions of moral elevation suggests a strong link to communion motivation: moral elevation promotes a variety of prosocial behaviours, including volunteering/helping (Aquino, McFerran, & Laven,

2011; Erickson & Abelson, 2012; Freeman et al., 2009; Schnall & Roper, 2012; Schnall et al., 2010; Siegel, Thomson, & Navarro, 2014; Thomson et al., 2014; Van de Vyver &

Abrams, 2015), nurturing others (Silvers & Haidt, 2008), and the urge to be a kinder and more thoughtful person (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Moral elevation may also exhibit a cross-link

to agency motivation, though this is expected to be relatively weaker than that to communion motivation. For example, when an individual feels morally elevated, they may be agentically motivated if they sense that they are capable of enacting prosocial behaviour (i.e., a sense of self-efficacy; Bandura, 1977).

Thus, as depicted in Figure 4, moral elevation was predicted to primarily contribute other-focused EWB via its positive impact on communion motivation. Cross-linked pathways to self-focused EWB and agency motivation were expected to be substantially weaker than these primary pathways.

Admiration

Admiration is the positive emotion an individual feels when witnessing the skill, achievement, or talent of others (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Its functions are twofold: praising the skilled individual and attempting to emulate them (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Indirect evidence suggests that admiration does not clearly differentiate between self- and other-focused EWB, but rather contributes equivalently to both.

Admiration promotes self-expansion (Schindler, Paech, & Löwenbrück, 2015), which refers to the process via which an increase in competency is attained via the adoption of new perspectives, knowledge, and abilities (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2004). Self-expansion comprises aspects that parallel the two subtypes of EWB. Firstly, the acquisition of new resources will assist the individual in mastering their environment (thus promoting self- focused EWB). Secondly, the maintenance of strong relationships with people who provide these resources will provide a sense of other-focused EWB.

Further support for the prediction that admiration contributes equivalently to self- and other-focused EWB comes from the recognition that, in many cases, the targets of admiration can be considered idols. Research on the outcomes of idolisation suggests that when an individual feels admiration towards their idol, they are likely to internalise the idol’s values

and ideals (see Schindler, Zink, Windrich, & Menninghaus, 2013 for an overview). This process of internalisation also maps onto both self- and other-focused EWB. On the one hand, internalising values and ideals will promote goal formation and/or a sense of meaning in life

(Boon & Lomore, 2001; Yue, Cheung, & Wong, 2010), both of which are key aspects of self- focused EWB. On the other hand, internalisation of an idol’s values and ideals can assist in the establishment of an emotional bond between the admirer and idol, such as a collective identity and shared vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000), which promotes other-focused EWB.

With regard to whether agentic and/or communal mechanisms serve to link admiration and EWB subtypes, admiration appears to boost both types of motivation. The action tendencies promoted by admiration centre around the outcome of upholding ideals, which can be achieved in two ways: 1) attempting to match the excellence of the ideal other, and 2) trying to please or form a close relationship with the ideal other (Schindler et al.,

2013). With regard to the former, admiration boosts an individual’s proclivity to engage in activities that better them professionally, academically, or physically (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; van de Ven, 2015; cf. van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011). This drive maps onto agency motivation. Role model research provides further support: participants who witness the academic achievements of an outstanding student intend to put more effort into their own academic goals (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997, 1999). In terms of the latter, Algoe and Haidt

(2009) found that individuals are motivated to praise the person who they witnessed excelling in their chosen field. This praising activity closely aligns with affiliation, a key component of communion motivation (Bakan, 1966). Admiration also promotes prosocial inclinations

(Algoe & Haidt, 2009), which aligns to the nurturing component of communion motivation.

Consideration of the appraisals that give rise to admiration provides further evidence for the relationship between admiration and agency and communion motivations. Tong

(2015) found that pride stemmed from appraisals of high achievement but low external influence. Given that both admiration and pride are elicited when skills and talents are displayed (by oneself for pride and by another for admiration), it is plausible that admiration also involves high achievement appraisals. However it is likely the case that, unlike pride, admiration also involves high external influence appraisals. Note that external and achievement appraisals map onto communion and agency motivations, respectively (Bakan,

1966; Helgeson, 1994; Wiggins, 1991). As such, admiration should positively relate to both communion and agency motivations.

Summary

Given past research on moral elevation and admiration, several hypotheses regarding their integration into the proposed model can be set. Moral elevation should primarily boost other-focused EWB, whereas admiration should promote both self- and other-focused EWB.

These effects were expected to be carried via communion motivation in the case of moral elevation and by both agency and communion motivation in the case of admiration. These hypothesised paths are depicted in the extended proposed model that appears in Figure 4.

Study 2a aimed to develop dispositional measures of moral elevation and admiration and

Study 2b tested the extended proposed model using these measures alongside measures of gratitude, compassion and pride.

STUDY 2A

The aim of Study 2a was to develop a trait measure of moral elevation and admiration to be deployed in a test of the extended proposed model in Study 2b. Shiota et al.'s (2006)

Dispositional Positive Emotion Scales (DPES) is a comprehensive tool that measures a range of emotion dispositions, including compassion, pride, contentment, awe, and joy. The DPES, however, does not include either moral elevation or admiration.

At least three other published and publically available scales are potential candidates for the measurement of moral elevation and/or admiration. First, Sarapin, Christy, Lareau,

Krakow, and Jensen (2014) recently developed an admiration scale with two dimensions: morality-based admiration and skill-based admiration. These two dimensions map onto moral elevation and admiration respectively. However, their tool was developed from a role modelling perspective, and as such it assesses qualities of a particular target that elicit morality-based and skill-based admiration (Sarapin et al., 2014). Example items include:

“[Role model] is very talented” (skill-based) and "[Role model] is very selfless” (morality- based) (Sarapin et al., 2014). As such, this scale can only be directed towards a single target and cannot be used to assess an individual’s general propensity to experience the emotions in question. Further, the scale is less than ideal for the current purposes given that it does not capture qualities of the emotional experience itself.

The second and third candidates are a measure of moral elevation developed by

Erickson and Abelson (2012) and Diessner, Solom, Frost, Parsons, & Davidson (2008).

While these measures are targeted at a dispositional level, and indeed towards moral elevation broadly (i.e., not towards a particular target), many of the items in these measures assess the function of moral elevation (e.g., the extent to which individuals are motivated to live in a virtuous way) and cognitive components of moral elevation (e.g., the degree to which individuals have a strong sense of moral identity), rather than the disposition to experience moral elevation. As such, these scales are not appropriate for the purposes of the current research. Therefore, in order to empirically test the posited relationships among dispositional moral elevation and admiration, motivations, and EWB (i.e., the extended proposed model), development of scales that measure an individuals’ tendency to experience moral elevation and admiration was first required.

Overview of Scale Development

Drawing on the scale development procedure of other key trait positive emotion scales (i.e., the DPES: Shiota et al., 2006; the Gratitude Questionnaire-6 [GQ6]: McCullough et al., 2002), scale development consisted of the following steps: 1) item development; 2) data collection with the new admiration/moral elevation scale and other constructs (e.g., personality traits); and 3) assessment of factor structure, reliability (both temporal and internal) and validity (primarily discriminant and concurrent).

Hypotheses

A variety of predictions about the assessed validity of the newly-developed admiration and moral elevation scales were drawn from extant research. In terms of discriminant validity, several constructs related to, but not believed to be redundant with, these two emotions were assessed: moral care in the case of moral elevation and inspiration in the case of admiration.

Moral care is the concern to keep vulnerable individuals out of harm’s way (De Waal,

2008). Thus, moral elevation and moral care share a common basis in the vulnerability to others. Yet to experience moral elevation, the individual must also (in addition to caring for the welfare of vulnerable others) witness the vulnerable individual being assisted by another individual, rendering it a separate construct.

Turning to inspiration, Thrash and Elliot (2003) conceptualise this construct as a form of motivation that energises and directs behaviour. Akin to admiration, inspiration can be triggered by a person, but can also be triggered by an idea (Thrash & Elliot, 2003). Further, inspiration is motivational, not affective in nature. As such, these two constructs are expected to be empirically distinct.

Turning to concurrent validity, a range of constructs were identified that were anticipated to share variance with moral elevation and/or admiration: other positive emotion

dispositions, attachment styles, the Big 5 personality traits and subjective wellbeing. These are considered in turn below.

Several of the suite of positive emotions assessed in the DPES were expected to correlate positively with both moral elevation and admiration. These predictions were drawn from both the functions and appraisals of the emotions, as well as valence. Turning first to awe, moral elevation and admiration were both expected to positively correlate given the overlap in appraisals that trigger these three emotions. Although awe has two typical appraisals – perceived vastness and need for accommodation – additional appraisals account for different varieties of awe experience (see Keltner & Haidt, 2003 for an overview). Two of these are moral virtue and exceptional ability, which are the key appraisals for moral elevation (Haidt, 2003a) and admiration (Algoe & Haidt, 2009), respectively. Love was also expected to correlate positively with both moral elevation and admiration due to the shared function of social bonding (moral elevation: Schnall & Roper, 2012; Algoe & Haidt, 2009; admiration: Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, et al., 2004; Schindler et al., 2015; love: Shiota et al.,

2006). Moral elevation was expected to have a stronger correlation with compassion than admiration given that both moral elevation and compassion are typically elicited by a vulnerable individual (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Goetz et al., 2010). Additionally, moral elevation and admiration were expected to correlate with one another given that they both involve the veneration of another; admiration to skill and moral elevation to kindness/generosity (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). In addtion to these key predictions, shared variance between moral elevation and admiration and the remaining emotions from the DPES

(pride, contentment, joy, amusement) was expected, given their collective status as positive emotions.

With regard to attachment styles, a similar concurrent validity pattern was expected for moral elevation and admiration. Research on attachment styles most typically focuses on

four styles: secure, fearful, pre-occupied, and dismissive (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

Given that securely attached individuals are likely to demonstrate communal behaviours in their relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer et al., 2001), secure attachment was expected to correlate positively with admiration and moral elevation.

Conversely, individuals with fearful, pre-occupied or dismissive attachment styles are likely to display distancing behaviours (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Thus these styles were expected to correlate negatively with admiration and elevation.

Turning to broad personality traits, hypotheses were derived from similar logic used to predict relationships with gratitude (McCullough et al., 2002) and pride, compassion, contentment, and other discrete positive emotions (Shiota et al., 2006). Given that extraversion and neuroticism correlate with valenced affective experience (extraversion and positive affect: Hermes, Hagemann, Naumann, & Walter, 2011; McCrae & Costa, 1991; neuroticism and negative affect: Hermes et al., 2011; McCrae & Costa, 1991), extraversion and neuroticism were expected to correlate positively and negatively, respectively, with moral elevation and admiration. Both moral elevation and admiration were expected to correlate positively with agreeableness given that all three lead to the development of social bonds (e.g., admiration: Aron, Aron, et al., 2004; Schindler et al., 2015; elevation: Erickson

& Abelson, 2012; Freeman et al., 2009; agreeableness: Malouff et al., 2010).

Conscientiousness tends to correlate with positive emotions that are elicited by goal-striving behaviour (e.g., pride; Shiota et al., 2006), thus conscientiousness was not expected to correlate with either admiration or moral elevation given that these two emotions are not particularly relevant to goal-striving. Finally, in relation to openness to experience, positive correlations were expected with both moral elevation and admiration for the following reason. Shiota et al. (2006) reported positive correlations between compassion, awe and openness to experience, and overlap exists between both compassion and moral elevation (the

shared elicitor of a vulnerable other: Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Goetz et al., 2010) and awe and admiration (the shared appraisal of exceptional ability; Keltner & Haidt, 2003).

As a final prediction, both moral elevation and admiration were expected to correlate positively with subjective wellbeing. Both moral elevation and admiration are positively valanced, and thus they are likely rooted in tendencies to experience subjective wellbeing

(Lyubomirsky, 2001; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998; McCullough et al., 2002)

Method

Participants and Procedure

Three hundred and five participants recruited via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk website completed the study online in exchange for a small monetary reimbursement.

Respondents were limited to those with US-based accounts. Data from 8 participants were excluded due to incorrect responses to questions aimed to screen for attention (“When you get to this item, please select slightly agree”). Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 297 participants (49% female; Mage = 34.18, SDage = 10.82). The majority of participants self-reported as Caucasian/White (78%).

Twenty-eight newly-developed items designed to assess admiration and elevation were interspersed amongst items from the seven subscales of the DPES (Shiota et al., 2006).

After completing these items, participants completed measures of personality, attachment style, subjective wellbeing, inspiration and moral harm, in a randomised order. Demographic information was requested at the end of the survey. To examine test-retest reliability, participants were invited to complete the newly-developed moral elevation and admiration items once more two weeks later.

Measures

Dispositional moral elevation and admiration. Participants completed 28 positively and negatively worded items (see Appendix A for all items) designed to assess participants’

disposition to experience moral elevation or admiration. In line with recent approaches to the differentiation of positive emotion (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Gruber, Oveis, et al., 2011; Shiota,

Neufeld, Yeung, Moser, & Perea, 2011) these consisted of both feeling (e.g., “I frequently feel morally elevated”) and physical sensation statements (e.g., “The generosity of others gives me chills”). Additionally, following a similar facet classification approach as deployed by McCullough et al. (2002) for gratitude, items reflected intensity (e.g., “I easily feel deep respect for the talents and skills of others”), frequency (e.g., “I often get emotional when I witness moral virtue”), threshold (“Someone has to achieve many things for me to admire them”) and span (e.g., “There are not many people who uplift me morally”). Responses were provided on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Once final scale items were determined, responses to items were averaged to form dispositional moral elevation and trait admiration indices.

Inspiration. Inspiration was assessed using Thrash and Elliot's (2003) Inspiration

Scale. The scale consists of four statements (e.g., “I experience inspiration”) each rated on two dimensions: “How often does this happen?” (1 = never, 7 = very often) and “How deeply or strongly (in general)?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very deeply or strongly). Responses across these

8-items were averaged to create an inspiration index ( = .87).

Moral care. The caring/harm subscale of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire

(Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009) was used to assess the disposition to care for vulnerable individuals. This subscale asks participants to indicate the relevance of four items tapping into harm/caring when making decisions (e.g., “Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable”) and their agreement with moral judgments related to harm/care (e.g., “It can never be right to kill a human being”). Responses were made on 6-point Likert scales ranging from 0 (not at all relevant) to 5 (extremely relevant) for moral relevance and 0

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for moral judgment. Responses across all four items were averaged to form a caring/harm moral intuition score (α = .75).

Dispositional positive emotions. The DPES (Shiota et al., 2006) was used to assess the tendency to experience the following positive emotions: joy (e.g., “I am an intensely cheerful person”;  = .86), contentment (e.g., “I am at peace with my life”;  = .92), pride

(e.g., “I am proud of myself and of my accomplishments”;  = .82), love (e.g., “I find it easy to trust others”;  = .82), compassion (e.g., “I am a very compassionate person”;  = .87), amusement (e.g., “I find humor in almost everything”;  = .77) and awe (e.g., “I often feel awe”;  = .80). Participants indicated their agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Responses to each 5- or 6-item scale were averaged to form indices of the seven discrete positive emotions.

Adult attachment style. Attachment style was measured using the Relationship

Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), which comprises four paragraphs each corresponding to one of the attachment styles: secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing.

Each paragraph is rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to (very much like me), yielding a single-item index of each of the four attachment styles. Despite the brevity of this scale, research has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity (see Ravitz,

Maunder, Hunter, Sthankiya, & Lancee, 2010 for an overview).

Personality traits. The Big Five personality traits were measured with a short 15- item scale (Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005). Despite its abbreviated length, this scale has shown acceptable reliability and validity (Hahn, Gottschling, & Spinath, 2012; Lang, John, Lüdtke,

Schupp, & Wagner, 2011). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was 0.85 for neuroticism

(e.g., “worries a lot”), 0.83 for extraversion (e.g., “is communicative, talkative”), 0.74 for openness to experience (e.g., “is original, comes up with new ideas”), 0.66 for agreeableness

(e.g., “has a forgiving nature”), and 0.75 for conscientiousness (e.g., “does a thorough job”).

Responses were made on 7-point scales, ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 7

(applies to me perfectly). Responses to each 3-item subscale were averaged.

Subjective wellbeing. Subjective wellbeing was assessed using two measures:

Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) and a single-item life satisfaction question (Haisken-De New & Frick, 2005; Lucas & Donnellan, 2013). The Subjective

Happiness Scale consists of four items, each rated on a unique 7-point Likert scale (e.g., “In general, I consider myself” 1 = not a very happy person, 7 = a very happy person). Responses to these four items were averaged ( = .87). Life satisfaction was assessed with the following question, rated on a 10-point scale (1 = totally dissatisfied, 10 = totally satisfied): “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” Although only a 1-item measure, this scale has adequate psychometric properties (Hahn et al., 2012; Lucas &

Donnellan, 2013).

Analytic Strategy

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted in SPSS (version 23; IBM Corporation,

2016). The default missing data option was employed (i.e., listwise deletion), resulting in the exclusion of one participant. Structural equation modelling to assess discriminant validity was conducted in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2015) using maximum likelihood estimation.

Results

Scale Construction: Initial Analysis

As a first step, an exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the initial pool of 28 items using oblique, promax rotation. Both the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) and parallel analysis

(Horn, 1965) indicated that the data was best represented by five factors, which accounted for

68.61% of the total item variance. Items with poor factor structure were eliminated (Furr,

2011). Specifically, any items that did not load on any of the five factors (cut-off < .6:

(Comrey & Lee, 1992) or that had cross loadings across factors (cut-off > .3: Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2001) were eliminated. Retained items and their corresponding factor loadings are shown in Table 4. The interpretation of the factor structure is as follows. Factor 1 contains items that represent an individual’s physiological reactions to situations/behaviours that typically elicit either admiration or elevation. Factor 2 and Factor 3 are comprised of admiration and moral elevation feeling statements, respectively. Factors 4 and 5 consist of only one item each, and both of these items were negatively worded.

Factors 2 and 3 were selected for retention for the final moral elevation and admiration scale for the following reasons: 1) physiological items intended to differentiate between moral elevation all loaded onto a single factor (i.e., Factor 1), and 2) the lack of more than one item loading onto each of Factors 4 and 5. Moral elevation and admiration scores were computed as the average response to the corresponding four items on relevant

Factors (i.e., Factors 2 and 3).

Table 4

Pattern Matrix of Retained Moral Elevation and Admiration Items (Study 2a)

Item Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3 4 5 The good deeds of others sometimes brings me to tears .78 When I witness selflessness, I sometimes get a lump in my throat .85 The accomplishments of others sometimes brings me to tears .72 When I witness excellence, I sometimes get a lump in my throat .90 The generosity of others gives me chills .63 I frequently admire the successes of others .85 I am amazed by the accomplishments of others .71 The excellence of others often impresses me .78 If I had to list all the people who I admire for their skills, it would be a very long list .66 I am moved when someone does a kind thing for another person .70 Even one selfless gesture can uplift me .67 I easily feel uplifted by the selflessness of others .63 My heart is often warmed by the kindness of others .77 Long amounts of time can go by before I feel elevated by the kindness of others .93 Someone has to do many kind things for another person for me to feel moved .76

Internal and Test-Retest Reliability

Two hundred and twelve participants opted to complete the 28 items again two weeks later. The correlation between Time 1 and Time 2 scores (i.e., those based on items comprising Factors 2 and 3 from the Time 1 data) was r = .72 for admiration and r = .73 for elevation, indicating sufficient temporal stability (Nunnally, 1970).

Internal reliability within the final scales was established. For admiration, Cronbach’s alphas were 0.88 at Time 1 and 0.90 at Time 2. For moral elevation, Cronbach’s alphas were

0.89 at Time 1 and 0.92 at Time 2.

Discriminant Validity

An attempt was made to distinguish moral elevation and admiration from related but distinct constructs. All analyses below were calculated with moral elevation and admiration scores from the first assessment (i.e., Time 1). Both constructs correlated with the moral care subscale (moral elevation: r = .52, p < .001; admiration: r = .21, p < .001) and inspiration

(moral elevation: r = .52, p < .001; admiration: r = .52, p < .001).

Competing structural equation models were deployed to further assess the interrelationships amongst these variables. Specifically, to assess the distinctiveness of moral elevation from moral care, a one factor solution (i.e., moral elevation and moral care modelled as a joint factor) was compared to a two factor solution (i.e., with moral elevation and moral care modelled as separate factors). If moral elevation is empirically distinct from moral care, I reasoned that a two factor model would provide a better fit to the data than a one factor model. Following guidelines for comparing competing models (Kass & Raftery, 1995;

Raftery, 1995), the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was compared across the one-

(7097) and two-factor (6975) models. The lower BIC value of the two-factor model

suggested that the moral elevation scale was empirically distinct from the moral care measure

(Graham et al., 2009).

Following the same procedure, the admiration scale was compared to Thrash and

Elliot's (2003) Inspiration Scale. The two factor model (i.e., inspiration and admiration modelled separately) had a lower BIC value (10312) than the one factor model (10748), suggesting that the admiration scale was empirically distinct from the Inspiration Scale

(Thrash & Elliot, 2003).

Criterion Validity

To establish criterion-related validity, correlations between the newly-developed moral elevation and admiration scales and a range of other constructs: other positive emotions, personality, attachment style, and subjective wellbeing were calculated. These correlations appear in Tables 5 and 6.

Starting with other trait positive emotions, and as expected, both moral elevation and admiration correlated positively with all emotions assessed in the DPES (Shiota et al., 2006): compassion, contentment, pride, joy, love, amusement, and awe.

With regard to the associations with attachment style, and as expected, both moral elevation and admiration correlated positively with secure attachment style and negatively with dismissive attachment style. The predicted negative correlation with preoccupied attachment style was not significant for either moral elevation or admiration. Moreover, the expected negative correlation with fearful attachment style for both moral elevation and admiration was only observed for moral elevation.

Turning to personality, and as expected, both moral elevation and admiration correlated positively with extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. However,

I failed to observe the anticipated negative correlations between either moral elevation or admiration and neuroticism. Against expectations, both admiration and moral elevation

correlated positively with conscientiousness. Finally, all predictions were met for subjective wellbeing: moral elevation and admiration correlated positively with subjective happiness and life satisfaction.

Table 5

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Moral Elevation/Admiration and the DPES (Study 2a)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Moral elevation 5.24 1.23 - 2. Admiration 4.82 1.35 .67 - 3. Compassion 5.50 1.06 .75 .52 - 4. Contentment 4.75 1.37 .41 .37 .36 - 5. Pride 4.98 1.09 .36 .37 .35 .78 - 6. Joy 4.61 1.20 .57 .59 .51 .80 .71 - 7. Love 4.61 1.19 .52 .54 .48 .64 .58 .68 - 8. Amusement 4.68 1.18 .18 .21 .15 .32 .39 .40 .31 - 9. Awe 4.88 1.08 .58 .61 .47 .54 .58 .71 .54 .37 Note. All correlations are significant at p < .05.

Table 6

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Moral Elevation/Admiration, Personality, Attachment Style and Subjective Wellbeing (Study 2a)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Moral elevation 5.24 1.23 - 2. Admiration 4.82 1.35 .67 - 3. Extraversion 3.80 1.54 .26 .20 - 4. Neuroticism 3.54 1.61 -.01 .05 -.32 - 5. Agreeableness 5.32 1.13 .49 .35 .12 -.13 - 6. Conscientiousness 5.59 1.12 .32 .22 .14 -.27 .32 - 7. Openness to experience 5.25 1.22 .32 .28 .29 -.06 .18 .28 - 8. Secure attachment style 4.10 1.83 .29 .21 .43 -.29 .30 .17 .11 - 9. Fearful attachment style 3.46 1.96 -.12 -.10 -.30 .41 -.25 -.25 -.08 -.57 - 10. Pre-occupied attachment 2.69 1.69 -.03 .05 .02 .35 -.15 -.26 .01 -.00 .29 - 11. Dismissive attachment style 4.36 1.79 -.25 -.19 -.08 -.19 -.16 .07 .03 -.23 .15 -.05 - style 12. Subjective happiness 4.59 1.48 .36 .35 .40 -.51 .33 .37 .19 .44 -.43 -.19 -.06 -

13. Life satisfaction 6.75 2.30 .29 .31 .32 -.36 .22 .33 .12 .40 -.36 -.14 -.03 .78 Note. All correlations greater than  .12 are significant at p < .05 (bolded).

Discussion

In Study 2a, new trait measures of moral elevation and admiration were developed and validated. Unlike existing scales designed to assess moral elevation and admiration

(Erickson & Abelson, 2012; Sarapin et al., 2014), the newly-developed measures focus on the tendency to experience these emotions in daily life. An exploratory factor analysis revealed three main factors: the disposition to experience moral elevation (Factor 2) and admiration

(Factor 3), as well as an individual’s physiological sensitivity to situations/behaviours that typically elicit either admiration or moral elevation (Factor 1). The remaining two observed factors were dismissed based on their inclusion of only a single item each. Together, the three main factors accounted for 61% of the variance. Given the focus on differentiating moral elevation and admiration, only items from Factors 2 and 3 were retained for reliability and validity testing. The moral elevation and admiration scales demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, including sound internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The validity of the scales will now be discussed, framed around specific psychological measures, before turning to a discussion of the aforementioned dropped items/factors.

Inspiration and Moral Care

Confirmatory factor analyses supported the premise that these scales are empirically distinct from the related constructs of inspiration in the case of admiration and moral care in the case of elevation.

Dispositional Positive Emotions

Individuals who are inclined to experience moral elevation and admiration also report experiencing a range of other positive emotions (as measured by the DPES: Shiota et al.,

2006); to be higher in extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. Although both moral elevation and admiration positively correlated with extraversion, I failed to observe the expected correlations with neuroticism. Negative associations were expected

based on empirical evidence that neuroticism is related to negative emotional experience

(Hermes et al., 2011; McCrae & Costa, 1991). Notably, all the emotions that failed to correlate significantly with neuroticism in Study 2a (i.e., admiration, moral elevation, and compassion) have a negative element to them. Specifically, compassion and moral elevation have been linked to sadness (compassion: Condon & Feldman Barrett, 2013; moral elevation:

Smith, 2010) and admiration to envy, at least in its benign form (van de Ven, 2015). It is possible that these negative undertones negate the predicted negative association with neuroticism. To address this possibility, future studies should specifically assess correlations between discrete positive emotions and affect directly, such as by the use of the Positive and

Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

Although neither admiration nor moral elevation are typically elicited by goal-striving behaviours, a positive correlation emerged between both emotions and conscientiousness. A review of the relevant literature reveals a potential link for this observation. Individuals who are conscientious are also likely to be receptive in their relationships. For example, individuals high in conscientiousness are more likely to detect that an individual is in pain and needs help than those low in conscientiousness (Courbalay, Deroche, Prigent, Chalabaev,

& Amorim, 2015). Given that both admiration and moral elevation are classified as other- focused emotions/induced by the actions of others (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Haidt, 2003b;

Tong, 2015), being receptive to the behaviours and expressions of others is a pre-requisite for their elicitation.

Adult Attachment Style

Individuals who are inclined to experience moral elevation and admiration also experience more secure and less dismissive attachment. However, it was expected that individuals who are dispositionally inclined to experience moral elevation and admiration would be lower in fearful and pre-occupied attachment styles. Although moral elevation was

negatively related to fearful attachment style, neither moral elevation nor admiration correlated significantly with pre-occupied attachment style. This suggests that more differentiated associations exist between attachment styles, moral elevation, and admiration than were predicted. Indeed, Shiota et al. (2006) found that only joy, contentment, and pride (out of a range of seven positive emotions) related to preoccupied attachment style. Notably, these three emotions involve goal-oriented behaviour (Shiota et al., 2006) and individuals with a preoccupied attachment style are likely to have unmet intimacy goals (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Importantly, neither admiration nor moral elevation result from goal-related appraisals.

Subjective Wellbeing

As predicted, both moral elevation and admiration were positively related to subjective wellbeing as measured by life satisfaction (Haisken-De New & Frick, 2005; Lucas &

Donnellan, 2013) and subjective happiness (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999).

Dropped Items

Recall that I opted to drop the physical sensation items that formed Factor 1 given that these did not differentiate between admiration and elevation. Indeed, the differentiation of admiration and elevation based on physical sensations is inconsistent in the literature. For example, Smith (2010) found that admiration induced no specific self-reported physiological patterns, whereas Algoe and Haidt (2009) differentiated between the two emotions based on physical sensations such as “chills” and “lump in throat”. Furthermore, Factors 4 and 5 were not retained as they consisted of one item each only. Interestingly, both of these items were negatively worded. Indeed, it is common for negatively worded items to form a factor of their own in scales of affect and personality, thus representing artefactual factors (see Spector, Van

Katwyk, Brannick, & Chen, 1997 for a review). Potential reasons that give rise to such patterns include a lack of ability to understand negatively worded items (Cordery & Sevastos,

1993) and carelessness in reading items (Schmitt & Stults, 1985).

Distinctiveness of Moral Elevation and Admiration

Whilst I was following a precedent in the literature to treat moral elevation and admiration as discrete emotions (see Algoe & Haidt, 2009 for a review), the fact that moral elevation and admiration were very highly correlated and that they share nearly identical correlations with the Big Five facets and attachment styles raises the question as to whether these emotions are in fact distinct from one another.

Partial correlations of moral elevation and admiration (while controlling for admiration and moral elevation, respectively) with the Big Five, attachment styles, subjective happiness, and life satisfaction shed some light on this question. When controlling for admiration, moral elevation remained positively and significantly correlated with conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and secure attachment style, though the relationship with fearful attachment style became nonsignificant. When controlling for moral elevation, admiration remained positively and significantly correlated with life satisfaction; correlations with all other variables became nonsignificant. The results of these partial correlation analyses reveal that admiration and elevation each share unique variance with related constructs and that those patterns are different across these emotions.

It is also of interest to point out that the high intercorrelations between moral elevation and admiration mirrors that observed between other discrete positive emotions. For example, in Shiota, Keltner, and John's (2006) validation study of the Dispositional Positive

Emotion Scales (DPES), pride and contentment were highly correlated (r = .72) and also had very similar relationships with the Big Five and attachment styles. Moreover, in the seminal paper that compared and contrasted the other-praising emotions of gratitude, moral elevation, and admiration (Algoe & Haidt, 2009) the authors’ hypothesis that moral elevation and admiration were discrete was supported. Specifically, they found differential patterning

across a wide range of outcomes (e.g., motivation, physical sensations, and relationship consequences).

The question of the discreteness of moral elevation and admiration will be further addressed in Study 2b, where the factor structure of the retained moral elevation and admiration items will be confirmed. Moreover, in Studies 4a and 4b, which sought to induce moral elevation and admiration, respectively, the crossover between these emotions will be addressed.

Conclusion

In summary, Study 2a successfully validated novel trait measures that assess the disposition to experience moral elevation and admiration. Additionally, this study provided insight into how moral elevation and admiration situate amongst a range of other psychological constructs, including other positive emotions, attachment styles, personality, and subjective wellbeing.

STUDY 2B

Using the scales developed in Study 2a, Study 2b aimed to extend the focus of the original model (which included gratitude, compassion, and pride) to two additional positive emotions: moral elevation and admiration. Specifically, as shown in Figure 5 and as detailed in the introduction to this chapter, the extended model posits that moral elevation should primarily and positively relate to other-focused EWB due to its influence on communion motivation. The extended model also predicts that admiration should positively relate to both self-and other-focused EWB because of its effects on communion and agency motivations, respectively. This study therefore further progresses a differentiated understanding of the contributions of discrete positive emotions to EWB.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Three hundred and four participants recruited via Mechanical Turk completed the study and were reimbursed monetarily for approximately 20 minutes of their time. Data from eight participants were excluded from the analysis as these participants failed to answer an attention check correctly (i.e., When you get to this item, please select “Strongly Agree”).

Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 296 participants (49% female; Mage = 36.35,

SDage = 11.93). The majority of participants self-reported as Caucasian/White (82%).

Participants first completed measures of dispositional positive emotions. Items from the new moral elevation and admiration scales developed in Study 2a were interspersed among items from the compassion, pride, and contentment subscales of the DPES (Shiota et al., 2006). Participants also completed the GQ-6 (McCullough et al., 2002). Participants next completed measures of communion and agency motivations. Finally, participants completed self- and other-focused EWB measures (Ryff, 1989) before providing demographic information.

Measures

The same measures for compassion, pride, gratitude, contentment, and self- and other- focused EWB that were used in Studies 1a and 1b were also used in Study 2b (s = .85-.96).

The new trait moral elevation and admiration scales developed in Study 2a were also used

(moral elevation:  = .91; admiration:  = .87). Note that these scales once again demonstrated strong internal reliability.

Different measures of communion and agency motivations were adopted in Study 2b.

This was driven by two main motives: 1) to utilise freely-available measures rather than the

PRF (Jackson, 1984), which involves a per-participant fee and 2) to deploy shorter measures than the PRF, which consists of 64 items.

Communion and agency motivations. Two measures were deployed to assess communion and agency motivations: the Needs Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al.,

1999) and the Compassionate Love Scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). Agency motivation was assessed as the average responses to the achievement (e.g., “I am a hard worker”) and dominance (e.g., “I seek an active role in the leadership of the group”) subscales of the Needs

Assessment Questionnaire ( = .88; Heckert et al., 1999). Communion motivation ( = .87) was assessed as the average responses to the affiliation subscale of the Needs Assessment

Questionnaire (e.g., “I am a people person;” Heckert et al., 1999) and the stranger-humanity version of the Compassionate Love Scale (e.g., "I feel a selfless caring for most of humankind"; Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). With regard to the latter, and in order to meet the aim of deploying a shorter measure of motivation, the five items with the highest item-total correlation scores from prior research with this scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005) were selected for use in this study.

Analytic Strategy

Using the same analytic approach as deployed in Studies 1a and 1b, a fully-saturated model was tested in Mplus using the maximum likelihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén,

2015) and estimates of the indirect and total effects were bootstrapped using 1000 bias- corrected resamples (Mackinnon et al., 2004). Total effect estimates of each positive emotion to each subtype of EWB were computed and subsequently subjected to analysis to assess the relative strengths. Next, after assessing the components of the proposed model (emotions  motivations; motivations  EWB), the same process was carried out to assess the presence and relative strength of indirect effects in the structural model.

With regard to missing data, the default Mplus option for maximum likelihood estimation was employed. All available data were used (i.e., pairwise deletion). Of the 296 participants, 292 were complete observations, and three participants had two missing

variables (both other- and self-focused EWB). One participant was completely excluded from the analysis due to only having data for the positive emotions.

Results

Model Testing

To assess multicollinearity in the data, tolerance statistics were computed for each of the possible sets of regressions in the model as per the procedure outlined in Study 1a. All tolerance values were above .10, mitigating concerns regarding multicollinearity (Kline,

2011). Descriptive statistics and correlations between measured constructs appear in Table 7.

Significant standardised estimates for the extended model appear in Figure 5.

Table 7

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations amongst Measured Constructs (Study 2b)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Gratitude 5.26 1.22 - 2. Compassion 5.30 1.22 .57 - 3. Pride 4.74 1.22 .60 .43 - 4. Contentment 4.58 1.46 .68 .42 .82 - 5. Moral Elevation 5.30 1.22 .62 .85 .44 .44 - 6. Admiration 4.98 1.23 .47 .57 .32 .29 .62 - 7. Communion Motivation 3.51 0.89 .54 .74 .51 .50 .70 .55 - 8. Agency Motivation 4.18 0.84 .35 .38 .69 .50 .33 .32 .51 - 9. Other-focused EWB 4.00 1.06 .68 .56 .64 .65 .56 .38 .63 .49 - 10. Self-focused EWB 4.16 0.93 .66 .40 .80 .81 .42 .27 .44 .55 .74 Note. All correlations significant at p < .05.

Communion

motivation

Gratitude .47

-.15

Compassion .32 .27

.18 Other-focused .11† .16 eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride .19 .27 .80 .43 .13† .34 Elevation

.14 Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing Admiration .39 .09

.14

Contentment .14

Agency motivation

Figure 5. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 2b). All listed estimates are significant at p < .01, unless marked with † suggesting significance at p < .10. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variance.

Emotions to EWB: Total Effects. With regard to total effects of emotions on EWB subtypes, gratitude and pride predicted both subtypes of EWB (gratitude to other-focused

EWB: β = 0.30, p < .001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.42]; gratitude to self-focused EWB: β = 0.18, p <

.001, 95% CI [0.09, 0.28]; pride to other-focused EWB: β = 0.25, p < .001, 95% CI [0.12,

0.38], pride to self-focused EWB: β = 0.40, p < .001, 95% CI [0.30, 0.51]. These findings replicate those established in Studies 1a and 1b. Further, in line with the proposed model, compassion had a significant total effect on other-focused EWB, β = 0.17, p = .02, 95% CI

[0.03, 0.31], replicating Study 1a. The relative strength of the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB was stronger than on self-focused EWB, b = 0.12, p = .01, 95% CI [0.03,

0.22], as expected. Against expectations, the total effect of pride on self-focused EWB was not significantly stronger as compared to the total effect on other-focused EWB (p = .12).

Contentment also predicted self-focused EWB, β = 0.37, p < .001, 95% CI [0.26, 0.49] and marginally predicted other-focused EWB, β = 0.13, p = .07, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28]. None of the total effects stemming from moral elevation or admiration were significant.

Emotions to motivations. Turning now to the expected links between emotions and motivations from the original model, compassion predicted both communion and agency motivations and pride predicted both agency and communion motivation (marginal significance). Surprisingly, gratitude negatively predicted agency motivation and the expected link to communion motivation did not emerge. As expected, compassion had a stronger effect on communion motivation than on agency motivation, b = 0.22, 95% CI [0.10,

0.34], p < .001, and pride had a stronger effect of agency motivation than on communion motivation, b = 0.47, 95% CI [0.36, 0.58], p < .001.

In terms of the extended model, admiration predicted both motivations, and moral elevation marginally predicted communion motivation. As expected, the links between

admiration and both types of motivation were equally strong, b = 0.002, 95% CI [-0.08,

0.09], p = .96.

Motivations to EWB. With regards to the motivations to wellbeing links, communion motivation positively predicted other-focused EWB and agency positively predicted self-focused EWB, as expected.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Four indirect effects from emotions to wellbeing via motivations emerged at either conventional or marginal levels of significance:

1) compassion to other-focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.13, p < .001, 95% CI

[0.06, 0.19], 2) pride to self-focused EWB via agency motivation, β = 0.07, p = .04, 95% CI

[0.00, 0.15], 3) moral elevation to other-focused EWB via communion motivation

(marginally significant), β = 0.04, p = .09, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.08], and 4) admiration to other- focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.04, p = .02, 95% CI [0.01, 0.07]. The first two of these indirect effects, which were also the strongest of the four, provide direct support for the original model and replicate Study 1a. The third and fourth indirect effects emerged as predicted in the extended model. No comparisons of these indirect effects were necessary as no weaker or cross-linked pathways were significant.

Contentment to other-focused EWB via communion motivation was marginally significant, β = 0.04, p = .07, 95% CI [0.00, 0.08], however other-focused EWB was more strongly predicted by the pathway involving compassion and communion motivation, b =

0.09, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14], p = .003).

Gender effects. Once again, gender was included in the model as a predictor of both motivations and EWB subtypes to examine whether it accounted for any of the observed effects (e.g., compassion to communion motivation). Gender differences emerged for three model variables: compassion: Mfemales = 5.49, SDfemales = 1.19, Mmales = 5.15, SDmales = 1.19, t(290) = 2.45, p = .02, d = 0.29; moral elevation: Mfemales = 5.49, SDfemales = 1.20, Mmales =

5.16, SDmales = 1.21, t(290) = 2.40, p = .02, d = 0.27; and self-focused EWB: Mfemales = 4.29,

SDfemales = 0.91, Mmales = 4.03, SDmales = 0.94, t(290) = 2.41, p = .02, d = 0.28. Despite these differences, the inclusion of gender in the model did not substantially change any of the pathways. In fact, the largest observed difference was 0.02. Thus it can be concluded that gender did not account for any of the relationships in the proposed model.

Alternative Model

Following the same logic as Study 1a and 1b, an alternative model was tested in which motivations distally predicted EWB via the six positive emotion dispositions. The extended proposed model had a smaller BIC value (2112.26) than the alternative model

(6528.97), and thus provided a better fit to the data, consistent with Studies 1a and 1b.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The 2-factor structure of the moral elevation/admiration scale was confirmed using the measurement model function in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2015; Figure 6). According to the cut-off criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Matsunaga (2010), model fit was acceptable on three out of four indices, RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.03. Though the χ² fit statistic did not meet criteria (χ²(19) = 41.74, p = .002), it is highly sensitive to sample size, and thus of relatively lower informational value when assessing model fit

(Russell, 2002). To further address concerns regarding the discreteness of moral elevation and admiration, the two factor solution was compared to a one factor solution. Following guidelines for comparing competing models (Kass & Raftery, 1995; Raftery, 1995), the

Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was compared across the one- (7196) and two-factor

(6925) models. The lower BIC value of the two-factor model suggested that the two-factor model provided a better fit.

I frequently admire the

successes of others

.80 I am amazed by the accomplishments of .83 others

Admiration The excellence of .87 others often impresses me

.71 If I had to list all the people who I admire for their skills, it would be a very long list .69 . 69 I easily feel uplifted by the selflessness of others .85

I am moved when someone does a kind .89 thing for another Elevation person .79 Even one selfless gesture can uplift me

.85 My heart is often warmed by the kindness of others

Figure 6. Measurement model including standardised estimates of significant loadings (Study 2b). All listed estimates are significant at p < .001.

Discussion

Study 2b extended the original proposed model (i.e., a model including compassion,

gratitude, and pride) to two additional positive emotions: moral elevation and admiration. In

doing so, the relative influence of five discrete emotions (i.e., gratitude, compassion, pride,

moral elevation, and admiration) on self- and other-focused EWB was investigated. Two

mechanisms for these links, communion and agency motivations, were also examined. I will

first review evidence for the original proposed model (including pride, gratitude, and compassion) before turning to evidence for the extended model.

Evidence for the Original Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. Results were in line with many of the proposed pathways from the original model and replicated findings from Studies 1a and 1b. Positive total effects were observed for gratitude and pride on both self- and other-focused EWB and contentment on self-focused EWB. All of these pathways were observed in Studies 1a and 1b.

Additionally, there was a positive total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB, as predicted, replicating Study 1a.

Further, many of the links between emotions and motivations as well as associated indirect effects from emotions to EWB subtypes via those motivations met predictions based on the original model. Many of these were also in line with findings from Studies 1a and 1b.

Pride contributed to self-focused EWB via its effects on agency motivation and compassion contributed to other-focused EWB via communion motivation.

Expected, not observed links. With regard to the original model, and as found in both Studies 1a, the primary expected link between gratitude and communion motivation was not observed, despite a significant raw correlation between these two variables (see Table 7).

Once modeled simultaneously with the other positive emotions, gratitude did not predict communion motivation. As was pointed out in Chapter 2, past empirical research supporting the link between gratitude and communion has studied gratitude in isolation (e.g., Bartlett et al., 2012; Williams & Bartlett, 2015). Thus, it may be the case that prior findings can be accounted for by shared variance between gratitude and other emotions that do predict communion (e.g., compassion, which correlated positively with gratitude in this study; see

Table 7).

Unexpected, observed links. It is worth taking note of the observed negative link between gratitude and agency motivation, as it is the opposite direction to what the proposed model suggests and conflicts with patterns observed in Studies 1a and 1b. An examination of the correlation values presented in Table 7 provides some insight into this findings, as the raw correlation between constructs is in fact positive. This raises the possibility that suppression has occurred (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Garbin, 2016). Recall from the discussion of Study

1b, suppression occurs when the addition of predictor into a regression equation increases the magnitude of the coefficient estimate of another predictor, with which the second predictor is correlated (Conger, 1974; Paulhus et al., 2004).

Post hoc exploratory analyses that eliminated other predictor variables from the structural equation model revealed that, in combination, compassion, pride, and admiration are likely serving as suppressor variables for the relationship between gratitude and agency motivation. In other words, when compassion, pride, and admiration were eliminated from the structural equation model, the estimate between gratitude and agency motivation was no longer significant (complete model: β = -0.15, p = .02; without suppressor variables: β = -

0.08, p = .33). The same equality of coefficients t-test for nested models within a single sample (Clogg et al., 1995) as used in Study 1b was used to test the significance of the difference in these regression coefficients. Results revealed that the cofficient of gratitude on agency motivation was significantly different with and without compassion, pride, and admiration in the model, t(288) = -2.16, p = .05.

It is important to note here that suppression should only be interpreted substantively if this suppression effect is replicated in future studies, otherwise it may be a “statistical fluke”

(see Paulhus et al., 2004 for an overview). This same suppression pattern did not emerge in

Studies 1a and 1b. Specifically, there was no evidence of suppression in Study 1a and a

different suppression pattern occurred in Study 1b (with communion motivation suppressing the relationship between agency motivation and other-focused EWB).

Evidence for the Extended Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. Admiration predicted both types of motivation. Moreover, admiration predicted other-focused EWB via communion motivation. Moral elevation marginally predicted other-focused EWB via communion motivation.

Expected, not observed links. None of the total effects of moral elevation or admiration on either subtypes of EWB were significant, despite significant raw correlations amongst these constructs (see Table 7). In other words, once other constructs in the proposed model were controlled for, moral elevation and admiration did not have unique influence on

EWB subtypes. However, with regard to the expected total effect of admiration and moral elevation to other-focused EWB, indirect effects were observed via communion motivation.

Note that the empirical evidence that was drawn upon to derive predictions for total effects of moral elevation on other-focused EWB and admiration on both subtypes of EWB studied these emotions in isolation from gratitude, compassion, and pride (moral elevation to other- focused EWB: Erickson & Abelson, 2012; Freeman et al., 2009; admiration to other-focused

EWB: Conger et al., 2000; Schindler et al., 2015; and admiration and self-focused EWB:

Boon & Lomore, 2001; Schindler et al., 2015; Yue et al., 2010).

Noting a similar situation to gratitude in the original model, moral elevation only marginally predicted communion motivation, despite the existence of a strong significant raw correlation between these constructs (r = 0.70; Cohen, 1988). When moral elevation was modelled while controlling for the other positive emotions, it only marginally predicted communion motivation. In fact, past research supporting the prediction of communion motivation from moral elevation has studied moral elevation in isolation from other discrete positive emotions (Schnall & Roper, 2012; Van de Vyver & Abrams, 2015).

100

Conclusion

Gratitude and pride contributed to both facets of EWB and compassion to other- focused EWB. Furthermore, the predicted indirect effects between compassion and other- focused EWB via communion motivation and pride and self-focused EWB via agency motivation were observed. However, in terms of extending the model to elevation and moral admiration, no total effects were observed. However, indirect effects were observed to other- focused EWB via communion motivation for both admiration and moral elevation

(marginally significant).

CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION

The two studies reported in Chapter 3 incorporated two additional positive emotions – moral elevation and admiration – into the proposed model. Specifically, Study 2a developed and validated a trait measure of moral elevation and admiration and Study 2b deployed this measure to extend the original proposed model. Although not all of the hypotheses concerning moral elevation and admiration were supported, many of the hypothesised links in the original model supported in Studies 1a were once again replicated. That is, individuals who are dispositionally-inclined to experience gratitude and pride also experience enhanced self- and other-focused EWB. Compassionate people experience improved other-focused

EWB. The primary mechanisms for two of the total effects were also supported and replicated Studies 1a: agency motivation emerged as a mechanism for the link between pride and self-focused EWB and communion motivation emerged as a mechanism for the link between compassion and other-focused EWB.

101

Chapter 4. Gratitude, Compassion, and Pride: The State Level of Experience

Chapters 2 and 3 reported four studies that examined the differentiated relationships among positive emotions, motivations, and eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB) at the trait level of experience: dispositional tendencies that are relatively stable over time. To further progress the differentiated view of positive emotion, motivations and subtypes of EWB, the study reported here in Chapter 4 (Study 3) turns to the application of the proposed model at the state level of experience: short-lived experiences that are situationally-specific. Just as a dispositionally-proud person may be relatively agentically motivated and thus experience higher levels of self-focused EWB, for instance, so too might any given individual when experiencing a particular instance of pride.

The consideration of the proposed model at the state level of experience represents an empirical response to the call that the understanding of psychological phenomena will benefit from the study of both state and trait levels of experience (Rosenberg, 1998; Watkins et al.,

2003). Moreover, replicating the trait patterns observed in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b at the state level of analysis will provide more robust support for the model. The research reported herein centres on the original proposed model, with a focus on the three positive emotions gratitude, compassion, and pride (Figure 1).

102

Communion motivation

Gratitude Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Compassion

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 1 (repeated from page 3). Proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride, and eudaimonic wellbeing. Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger effects. STUDY 3

The overall aim of Study 3 was to test the original model at the state level of experience. The hypothesised links are the same as those detailed in Chapters 1 and 2, with the same underlying logic. With regard to total effects, differentiated links between the three positive emotions and subtypes of EWB were hypothesised. Specifically, gratitude and compassion were expected to primarily contribute to other-focused EWB and pride to self- focused EWB. Predictions regarding mechanisms for these relationships were also set.

Specifically, pride was expected to contribute to self-focused EWB due to augmenting agency motivation, whereas compassion and gratitude were expected to contribute to other- focused EWB as a function of increased communion motivation.

Tests of the model at the state level of experience entails a movement away from cross-sectional designs to experimental designs, in which the focal emotions are induced. In

Study 3, interpersonal inductions were deployed to induce target emotions in participants.

103

Several existing paradigms were adapted for use in Study 3 to induce gratitude (Bartlett &

DeSteno, 2006), compassion (Condon & DeSteno, 2011), and pride (Williams & DeSteno,

2008).

Method

Participants

One hundred and ninety-nine undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of New South Wales completed the study in exchange for course credit. However, data from some participants were excluded on the basis of two criteria. Firstly, data from eight participants who incorrectly answered an attention check

(“Please select strongly agree for this item, so that we know you are paying attention”) were excluded. Secondly, as will be detailed in the procedure below, a suspicion check was conducted at the end of the experiment to assess the success of the deception involved in manipulating participants’ emotional states. Data from 25 participants who had suspicions that key components of the paradigm were staged (e.g., “I am being deliberately misled” and

“The experiment seemed like a setup from the start”) were excluded. Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 166 participants (66% female; Mage = 19.07, SDage = 1.90). The majority of the sample identified as Asian (51%) or White/Caucasian (35%).

Procedure and Design

Study 3 adopted a between-subjects design with 5 conditions: neutral control, generalised positivity, gratitude, pride, and compassion. The neutral control condition was designed and included so as to provide a baseline measure of key outcomes free from the influence of induced affective states. The generalised positivity condition was included to dissociate the effects of gratitude, compassion, and pride from simply feeling positive, given that all three focal emotions are experienced as positive in valence and correlate with state positivity (gratitude: McCullough et al., 2002; compassion: Engen & Singer, 2015; pride:

104

Williams & DeSteno, 2008), and positivity is related to both EWB (Fredrickson, 1998;

Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998) and motivation (Isen, 2000; Whelan & Zelenski, 2012).

Participants believed that they were one of two people participating in an experiment examining group versus individual problem solving ability (see Bartlett et al., 2012 for a similar cover story). In reality, the other “participant” was a gender-matched confederate blind to hypotheses. Figure 7 depicts the nine-step sequence of events deployed in the study paradigm designed to elicit condition-specific targeted states. All conditions were methodologically identical except for the key manipulations of interest. Each of these nine steps is described in more detail below. The full script for this study is available in Appendix

105

Gratitude Pride Positivity Compassion Neutral

Step 1 Joint problem solving task

Step 2 Individual problem solving task

Step 3 Computer breaks

GRATITUDE Computer auto- Computer auto- Computer auto- Computer auto- Step 4 INDUCTION fixes fixes fixes fixes (confederate fixes computer)

Experimenter PRIDE Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter confirms that INDUCTION confirms that confirms that confirms that Step 5 scores have (participant scores have scores have scores have been processed receives been processed been processed been processed feedback on scores)

Confederate Confederate POSITIVITY Confederate Confederate tells a neutral tells a neutral INDUCTION tells a neutral tells a neutral Step 6 story story (confederate story story tells a funny story)

Confederate Confederate Confederate COMPASSION Confederate receives text receives text receives text INDUCTION receives text and says they and says they and says they (confederate and says they Step 7 forgot they had forgot they had forgot they had receives text forgot they had a group a group a group and mentions a group assignment assignment assignment their brother has assignment meeting meeting meeting been diagnosed meeting with cancer)

Step 8 Confederate is dismissed

Step 9 Self-report measures (manipulation checks, motivations, EWB, demographics, suspicion check)

Figure 7. Procedure and emotion manipulations used in Study 3.

Steps 1-3: Paradigm Setup. Upon arrival, the participant and confederate were left alone for one minute, allowing the confederate time to establish rapport with the participant by asking them what degree they were enrolled in (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006). The

106

confederate always stated that they were a music student taking the psychology course as an elective. Once this rapport was established, the participant and confederate completed a joint general knowledge test (Step 1) by completing half of the questions on their own and then swapping their responses, giving their partner the opportunity to change/check their responses

(adapted from Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; DeSteno, Bartlett, Baumann, Williams, & Dickens,

2010). The second task was framed as an individual problem-solving task (Step 2). In this task, participants decide whether a string of letters flashed on the screen constitutes an

English word. This task was designed to be rather onerous, and serves as the foundation for the gratitude induction in Step 4 (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006). Additionally, participants were told that the task reliably predicts future performance on a variety of tasks relating to intelligence, thus facilitating the pride manipulation in Step 5 (Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

Upon completion of the individual problem-solving task, and while the participant viewed a screen reporting that scores were being processed, the participant’s computer appeared to break (Step 3). The experimenter then noted aloud that she must call IT support and that the participant will need to re-complete the task on another computer as the scores were essential.

Before leaving to ostensibly make that phone call, the experimenter dismissed the confederate, explaining that it was unfair to ask them to wait until the participant had re- completed the individual problem solving task.

At this stage of the experiment, the paradigm deviated according to condition. The details of each of the gratitude, pride, generalised positivity, and compassion manipulations are provided below.

Step 4: Gratitude manipulation. In the gratitude condition, the confederate appeared to hesitate before picking up their bag and announcing that they would attempt to fix the computer, trying a number of things (e.g., suggesting that the participant press certain keys, checking for loose cords at the back of the monitor). It is worth noting that the confederate

107

went out of their way to help the other participant given that they had been dismissed by the experimenter. As such, the provided help was designed to be seen as a favour; this favour in addition to the task being onerous are both necessary for the elicitation of gratitude (Bartlett et al., 2012; McCullough, Kimeldorf, & Cohen, 2008). Importantly, prior research has confirmed the success of this manipulation (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Bartlett et al., 2012;

DeSteno et al., 2010). Upon noting that the computer was fixed, the experimenter then asked the confederate to wait while she took the participant into the adjacent room to confirm that their scores had in fact been recorded given the glitch in the computer.

In all other conditions, the computer was timed to appear to spontaneously be fixed with the message that the participant’s scores had been processed. This was timed to occur just before the confederate left the room. The confederate then retrieved the experimenter, who asked the confederate to wait while she took the participant into the adjacent room to confirm that their scores had successfully been uploaded. Note that the breaking of the computer in all conditions deviates from Bartlett and DeSteno's (2006) standard gratitude induction, in which the computer broke in only the gratitude condition. This methodological decision will be revisited in the Discussion of this chapter.

Step 5: Pride manipulation. In the pride condition, when the experimenter was supposedly checking that the scores had been recorded, she informed the participant that their score placed them in the 94th percentile. She gave verbal acclaim (e.g., “great job!”) and positive nonverbal signals (e.g., smiling) to convey that she was impressed with the participant’s performance (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). This pride manipulation has been successfully used in previous studies (Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009).

In all other conditions, the experimenter confirmed to the participant that their scores had been successfully processed; no feedback was given on the relative ranking of these scores. Note that all participants in all conditions were given the same raw scores. During the

108

general instructions participants were told that their scores were based on both the speed and accuracy of their responses in relation to other participants, so that they could not reliably assess their own performance (as per Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009).

Step 6: Generalised positivity manipulation. In all conditions, both the experimenter and the participant returned into the main testing room. Next, the experimenter appeared to realise that she had left the instructions for the next task in the other room. While walking to get them, she casually suggested that the confederate and participant chat about their weekend while waiting for her return. In all conditions, the confederate discussed a social situation – a barbeque at a friend’s house. Given amusement is a commonly employed method for inducing generalised positivity (e.g., Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Forgas, 2001;

Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985), in the generalised positivity condition, the confederate recounted a funny story about their friend accidentally using salt rather than sugar in a pavlova recipe. Confederates used cues such as laughing and smiling to convey the amusing nature of the event. In all other conditions, the discussion was also about a barbeque, but involved simply describing the different food that was served.

Step 7: Compassion manipulation. Toward the end of the story, the experimenter

(who was still in the adjacent room) sent the confederate a text message. Upon hearing the text alert on the confederate’s phone, the experimenter re-entered the main testing room, visibly noticing that the confederate was responding to the text. The experimenter then asked the confederate if everything was okay. In the compassion condition, the confederate responded by saying that their brother had recently been diagnosed with cancer and that their mum had asked them to call her about it. As with the pride and gratitude manipulations, this paradigm was adapted from one shown to be effective in inducing compassion in prior research (Condon & DeSteno, 2011).

109

In all other conditions, the confederate explained that they had choir rehearsal in five minutes; something that they had apparently completely forgotten about. Note the attempt to make this excuse consistent with the disclosure early in the paradigm that the confederate was a music student.

Steps 8-9: Paradigm conclusion and measures. In all conditions, the experimenter next dismissed the confederate (Step 8), asking them to get in contact with her to arrange another time to complete the final task. Directly following the manipulations, participants completed manipulation checks on the emotion inductions, followed by measures of the proposed mediator variables (i.e., motivations), dependent variables (i.e., self-focused and other-focused EWB), demographics and a suspicion check (Step 9; Harmon-Jones, Amodio,

& Zinner, 2007).

Measures

Emotion manipulation check. To keep the manipulation check under the scope of the cover story, the experimenter explained that she was aiming to further develop the problem solving tasks and was consequently gathering normative data on participants’ experiences. With regard to the motivations and EWB subtypes, participants were told that these measures form part of an individual differences questionnaire, which would be used to examine how these variables feed into the problem solving processes under investigation.

Participants reported how well different emotion adjectives represented both their current feeling states and their feelings toward the confederate, using 7-point Likert scales anchored by not at all and extremely. Emotion adjectives were interspersed among filler items (e.g., “Did the experimenter give you a chance to ask questions before each task”) to maintain the cover story. Gratitude ( = .77) was assessed as the mean response to the item

“Right now, I feel grateful” and the following two questions: “How grateful/appreciative do you feel toward the other participant?” Pride ( = .82) was assessed as the mean response to

110

the items “accomplished”, “pleased”, and “proud” and compassion ( = .65) as the mean response to the items “compassionate”, and “sympathetic”. Participants also indicated the extent to which they felt “happy”, “amused”, and “content”; responses were combined to form an index of generalised positivity ( = .60). Variations of these emotion descriptors have been used to assess these states in past studies (gratitude: Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006;

Bartlett et al., 2012; compassion: Condon & DeSteno, 2011; Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011; pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009; generalised positivity: DeSteno et al., 2010;

Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

Motivation. Communion and agency motivations were assessed via Jackson's (1984)

Personality Research Form (which was used in Study 1a and 1b). In line with Study 3’s aim to measure state motivation, the statements were slightly modified from their original form.

Participants were instructed to decide whether the items described them “right now, that is, at the present moment”. Example items are as follows: “Right now, I would enjoy difficult work” (Achievement); “Right now, I would try to be in the company of friends as much as possible” (Affiliation); “Right now, I would be confident to direct the activities of others”

(Dominance); and “Right now, it is very important to me to show people I am interested in their troubles” (Nurturance). An index for agency ( = .84) was created by summing the scores from the achievement and dominance subscales, and an index for communion motivation ( = .81) was created by summing the scores from the nurturance and affiliation subscales (Beck & Miller, 2000; Grossbaum & Bates, 2002).

Eudaimonic wellbeing. As in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b, self- and other-focused EWB was assessed using Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales (45-item version). In line with past research, the wording of some items was slightly modified to assess momentary experience (Bosson et al., 2005). The scales of environmental mastery (e.g., “Right now, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live”), personal growth (e.g., “At this present

111

moment, I would say that life has been a continuous process of learning, changing and growth”), purpose in life (e.g., “At this present moment, I don’t think that I am wandering aimlessly through life”) and self-acceptance (e.g., “I like most aspects of my personality at this current moment”) were averaged to form a self-focused EWB score (Burns & Machin,

2010, 2012). The positive relations with others subscale (e.g., “Right now, I think that people would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others”) represented other-focused EWB. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 for self-focused EWB and 0.84 for other- focused EWB in the current sample.

Analytic Strategy

Structural equation modelling was carried out in Mplus using maximum likelihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Bootstrapping (again using 1000 resamples, bias corrected; Mackinnon et al., 2004) was deployed to assess indirect effects and total effects.

Three sets of analysis were conducted. Total effect estimates were first computed (i.e., the combination of direct [emotion  EWB] and indirect [emotion  motivations  EWB] pathways) followed by an assessment of individual component paths of the model (i.e., emotion  motivation and motivation  EWB). Finally, indirect effects were assessed.

Across all three sets of analyses, a test of the relative strengths of pathways (using the difference score procedure: Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) were carried out in a manner suggested by the proposed model (e.g., whether agency had a stronger link to self- than other-focused EWB). Note that an alternate model (e.g., with communion and agency motivation predicting discrete positive emotions) was not considered as emotions were induced rather than measured at the trait level.

With regard to missing data, the default Mplus option for maximum likelihood estimation was employed (i.e., pairwise deletion). Apart from one individual who was

112

missing data on both other- and self-focused EWB, all other individuals had complete observations.

Results

Manipulation Check

A mixed ANOVA with state emotion (gratitude, compassion, pride, and generalised positivity) as the within-subject factor and condition (gratitude, compassion, pride, generalised positivity, and neutral) as the between-subjects factor was carried out to assess the success of the emotion inductions. Mauchly’s test of sphericity revealed that the assumption of sphericity was violated for the main effect of state emotion, χ2(5) = 63.98, p <

.001. Therefore, following recommendations from Girden (1992) and Tabachnick and Fidell

(2001), degrees of freedom were corrected using the Huynh-Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε

=.84). Main effects of condition, F(4, 161) = 3.96, p < .005, ηp² = .09, and state emotion,

F(2.52, 405.90) = 9.28, p < .001, ηp² = .05, were qualified by a significant interaction between state emotion and condition, F(10.08, 405.90.35) = 7.28, p < .001, ηp² = .15.

113

1 Neutral Conditon Gratitude Condition Compassion Condition Pride Condition Positivity Condition

State Gratitude State Compassion State Pride State Positivity

Figure 8. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for Study 3. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

114

In line with Tong (2015), who adopted a parsimonious and conservative approach to examining differences in self-reports across a multitude of emotion conditions, two follow-up analyses were carried out. Firstly, within each condition (e.g., compassion condition), the level of the targeted emotion (e.g., state compassion) was compared to the level of the next highest reported emotion (e.g., state gratitude). These within-condition pairwise comparisons were not significant in the compassion (p = .32), pride (p = .44), or generalised positivity (p

= .44) conditions. The within-condition pairwise comparison in the gratitude condition was not calculated, as the highest elicited emotion was state generalised positivity rather than state gratitude.

Secondly, across emotion conditions, the level of the targeted emotion (e.g., state compassion) in a particular condition (e.g., compassion condition) was compared to the level of that targeted emotion in the condition in which it was next highest (e.g., generalised positivity condition). Note that between-condition pairwise comparisons were not calculated for state generalised positivity or state gratitude seeing as levels of these emotions were not the highest within their respective target conditions. State compassion was significantly higher in the compassion condition compared to the condition with the next highest levels of compassion: positivity, Mdifference = 0.85, p = .01, 95% CI of mean difference [.26, 1.43]. The corresponding comparison for state pride was not significant (p = .13).

Model Testing

Descriptive statistics and correlations between measured constructs appear in Table 8, and significant standardised estimates for the proposed model appear in Figure 9. The neutral control condition was not explicitly included in the model. Rather, given that categorical levels of membership with more than two levels (as is the case here with five conditions) cannot be used in a path analytic approach (Field, 2011), four dummy variables were created that collectively specified group membership (e.g., pride condition: 0 = no, 1 = yes). As such,

115

the effects from condition to each state emotion represent a comparison against the neutral control condition. To address potential multicollinearity concerns, tolerance statistics for all sets of regressions were computed as was done in Studies 1a, 1b and 2b. All tolerance values were above .10, attenuating such concerns (Kline, 2011).

The results of the analyses of the manipulation checks suggest substantial bleed-over of induced emotional states across target conditions. That is, participants in a given condition may have reported high levels of the target emotion, but in nearly all cases, these levels were not higher than levels of other positive emotions within that condition, and not higher than levels of the target emotion in other conditions. Given these bleed-over effects both between and within conditions, the influence of emotions on motivations and EWB subtypes was assessed via state emotion rather than condition (see Figure 9). Note that a similar approach was adopted by Schindler et al., (2015). This approach enables examination of how particular emotional states give rise to motivations and EWB subtypes, independently of how participants came to experience those states. Indeed, it would be difficult to decipher which emotion impacted motivations or EWB subtypes if condition was used to proximally predict these constructs, given the mixed nature of emotional experience as a function of condition.

116

Table 8

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all conditions combined; Study 3)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gratitude 4.29 1.17 - 2. Compassion 3.92 1.33 .62 - 3. Pride 4.29 1.11 .31 .26 - 4. Positivity 4.40 1.02 .28 .27 .71 - 5. Communion Motivation 22.84 5.15 .03 .01 .22 .22 - 6. Agency Motivation 18.75 6.18 -.09 -.02 .24 .16 .26 - 7. Other-focused EWB 4.60 0.84 .09 .01 .30 .31 .68 .31 - 8. Self-focused EWB 4.40 0.66 -.05 -.07 .29 .23 .41 .55 .66 Note. All correlations greater than .22 are significant at p < .05 and displayed in bold.

117

Communion motivation

Gratitude .61 State Other-focused condition gratitude -.18 .29 eudaimonic

-.19 wellbeing

Compassion .37 State .12 condition compassion .55 .22

Pride State .25 .39 condition pride Self-focused .19 .29 .24 .25 eudaimonic wellbeing Positivity State .45 .22 condition positivity

Agency motivation

Figure 9. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 3). All listed estimates are significant at p < .05, unless marked with † suggesting significance at p < .10. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variances. Error variances for state emotion are as follows: gratitude with compassion, 0.51; gratitude with pride, 0.32; gratitude with positivity, 0.30, compassion with pride, 0.29; compassion with positivity, 0.32, and pride with positivity, 0.70.

118

Given that the model in Figure 9 is not fully saturated, assessing model fit was necessary (Kline, 2011). As per cut-off criteria suggested by Hu & Bentler (1999) and

Matsunaga (2010), model fit met acceptable standards, χ²(16) = 21.57, p = .16; RMSEA =

0.05; CFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.03.

Condition to state emotion. Turning first to the links between condition and positive emotions, the bleed-over effects observed in the ANOVA on state emotion were apparent.

Three of the targeted links were significant: 1) state compassion was predicted by the compassion condition, 2) state pride by the pride condition, and 3) state positivity by the positivity condition. State gratitude was not predicted by the gratitude condition (p = .19).

The following non-targeted links were also observed: 1) state gratitude was predicted by both the compassion and positivity condition, 2) state pride was predicted by the positivity condition and gratitude condition (marginally significant), and 3) state positivity was predicted by the pride condition. Note also that state compassion was negatively predicted by the gratitude condition.

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. Only one total effect between state positive emotion and EWB was observed: state pride positively contributed to self-focused EWB as expected, β = 0.28, p = .01, 95% CI [0.10, 0.51]. State generalised positivity positively contributed to other-focused EWB (marginally significant), β = 0.19, p = .07, 95% CI [-0.04,

0.38].

Emotions to motivations. Against expectations, none of the state emotions significantly predicted communion motivation. As expected, higher levels of state pride led to higher levels of agency motivation. Higher levels of state gratitude led to lower levels of agency motivation – a cross-link that was in the reverse direction than expected.

119

Motivations to EWB. Agency motivation predicted self-focused EWB and communion motivation predicted other-focused EWB, as per the primary predictions of the original model. Note that anticipated cross-links were observed, with agency motivation predicting other-focused EWB and communion motivation predicting self-focused EWB.

However, in line with the proposed model, the primary predicted links were stronger than the anticipated cross-links. That is, agency motivation had a stronger link to self- than other- focused EWB, b = 0.03, p < .001, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05], and communion motivation had a stronger link to other- than self-focused EWB, b = 0.07, p < .001, 95% CI [0.05, 0.08].

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. The two significant emotion-motivation links

(pride and gratitude to agency motivation) provided a basis for the only two indirect effects that emerged between state emotion and EWB at conventional or marginal levels of significance: 1) state pride to self-focused EWB via agency motivation, β = 0.13, p = .01,

95% CI [0.05, 0.26], and 2) state gratitude to self-focused EWB via agency motivation

(marginally significant), β = -0.08, p = .06, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.01]. Note that the latter is negative. The first of these indirect effects, which was also stronger, provides direct support for the proposed model.

Gender effects. Consistent with Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b, gender did not account for any of the proposed model’s relationships. That is, when gender was included as a predictor of motivations and EWB, no path estimates changed markedly; the largest observed difference across the two models was 0.04. Additionally, no gender differences emerged for state positive emotions, motivations, or subtypes of EWB, ts < 1.88, ps > .07.

120

Discussion

Study 3 examined the original proposed model at the state level of experience.

Specifically, the relative contribution of in-the-moment experience of three discrete positive emotions (i.e., gratitude, compassion, and pride) on self- and other-focused EWB was assessed. Communion and agency motivations were examined as mechanisms of these links.

Study 3 deployed highly-involved interpersonal inductions drawn from past work (gratitude:

Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; compassion: Condon & DeSteno, 2011; pride: Williams &

DeSteno, 2008) to elicit the focal emotions in a laboratory setting.

Evidence for the Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. Pride was the only emotion that had the expected effect on either motivation or EWB: pride contributed positively to self-focused EWB and agency motivation. State levels of communion and agency motivations did impact state levels of self- and other-focused EWB, with the primary pathways being stronger than the cross-linked pathways (i.e. agency primarily impacted self-focused EWB and communion other-focused

EWB). Additionally, the indirect pathway from pride to self-focused EWB via agency motivation was significant.

Expected, not observed links. Several expected links in the model did not emerge in

Study 3. These will be discussed in two broad areas: total effects of emotions on EWB and links between emotions and motivations, with corresponding impact on the anticipated indirect effects.

Firstly, none of the total effects of gratitude and compassion on EWB subtypes were significant. One possible reason may stem from an unintentional misalignment between the specificity versus generality of the constructs being assessed, realised in hindsight. State gratitude and compassion were assessed as specifically directed towards the confederate (e.g.,

“How grateful do you feel toward the other participant”). However, other-focused EWB was

121

assessed as a sense of having strong relationships generally, or on average, rather than having a positive relationship with one particular person (e.g., “Right now, most people would see me as loving and affectionate”). Therefore, although participants may have felt gratitude or compassion towards the confederate as a function of the emotion inductions, this was not sufficient to boost a generalised sense of having positive and satisfying relationships. Indeed, many past studies that have induced gratitude or compassion using a confederate or had a specific target to which the participants felt gratitude or compassion (e.g., a roommate) have measured outcomes specific to the target of the emotion (e.g., close and responsive relationships to a roommate/sorority friend: Canevello & Crocker, 2011; Algoe et al., 2008; feelings of satisfaction and connectedness with a specific romantic partner: Algoe et al.,

2010).

This idea is captured in the concept of bandwidth-fidelity, in which stronger predictions of a criterion can be made when dimensionality between the criterion and the predictor align (Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, & Icing, 1994; Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971). For instance, a relatively narrow, unidimensional predictor (e.g., compassion or gratitude toward a particular person) should be used to predict an equally narrow criterion (e.g., communal motivation towards one person). Importantly, this specificity mismatch did not occur for pride, in which both the target of the emotion and of the EWB (i.e., self-focused) was the self.

Further, in Study 1a, in which total effects of compassion and gratitude on other-focused

EWB emerged, and Study 1b, in which the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB emerged, constructs (i.e., emotions, motivations, EWB) were assessed broadly, and thus at the same bandwidth, so to speak.

Turning to the expected, but not observed links from gratitude and compassion to communion motivation, one explanation may lie with the measurement of communion motivation. In retrospect, the scale deployed in Study 3 may not be suited to an

122

undergraduate student sample. For example, two items on the nurturance subscale (“Right now, if I could, I would hire a nurse to care for a sick child rather than do it myself” and

“Right now, I would take a young person under my wing”) would seem more appropriate with an older sample. Indeed, in Studies 1a and 1b, which did establish support for the predicted link between compassion and communion motivation, the sample was considerably older (mean ages: Study 1a: 37.18, Study 1b: 27.31, Study 3 [current study]: 19.07).

Another potential reason for the absent links from gratitude and compassion to communion motivation again stems from unintentional misalignment between the specificity versus generality of the measures. Whereas compassion and gratitude were assessed specifically towards the confederate, communion motivation was assessed as a proclivity to affiliate with others more generally (e.g., affiliation: “Right now, I would go out of my way to meet people”; nurturance: “Right now, it is very important to me to show people that I am interested in their troubles”). As noted above for the case of total effects, many past studies have measured communion motivation specific to the target of the emotion (e.g., prosocial behaviour towards the benefactor towards whom the participant felt gratitude: Bartlett et al.,

2012; Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; DeSteno et al., 2010; prosocial behaviour towards another specific confederate involved in the experiment: Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Condon &

DeSteno, 2011; DeSteno et al., 2010).

These possibilities raise the prediction that expected paths would indeed be observed should better matching between specificity vs. generality of measures and better alignment between scale items and sample characteristics be achieved.

Unexpected, observed links. Just as was observed in Study 2b, gratitude attenuated agency motivation in the structural model, despite the raw correlation between these two constructs being non-significant. It is therefore possible that gratitude was subjected to a suppressor variable/combination of suppressor variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Garbin,

123

2016). Recall from the Discussion of Study 1b and 2b, suppression occurs when the addition of a predictor into a regression equation increases the magnitude of the coefficient estimate of another predictor, with which the second predictor is correlated (Conger, 1974; Paulhus et al.,

2004). Post hoc exploratory analyses that systematically eliminated other predictor variables from the model uncovered that pride and generalised positivity are likely serving as a suppressor variable. When pride and generalised positivity were removed from the structural model, the estimate between gratitude and agency motivation was no longer significant

(complete model: β = -0.19, p = .03; without suppressor variables: β = -0.11, p = .21). The same equality of coefficients t-test for nested models within a single sample (Clogg et al.,

1995) as used in Study 1b and 2b was used to test the significance of the difference in these regression coefficients. Results revealed that the cofficient of gratitude on agency motivation was significantly different with and without pride and generalised positivity in the model, t(161) = -2.76, p = .01.

As outlaid previously in the Discussion of Study 1b and 2b, suppression should only be interpreted substantively if it is replicated, otherwise it is possibly a “statistical fluke” (see

Paulhus et al., 2004 for an overview). The same patterning has not occurred in Studies 1a-2b.

Specifically, there was no evidence of suppression in Study 1a and a different suppression pattern occurred in Study 1b (with communion motivation suppressing the relationship between agency motivation and other-focused EWB) and 2b (with compassion, pride, and admiration suppressing the relationship between gratitude and agency motivation).

Emotion Inductions

The efficacy of the emotion inductions in eliciting the target emotion also warrants discussion. If the interpersonal inductions had been ideally successful, two findings would have emerged: 1) the target condition (e.g., compassion condition) would have elicited the target emotion (e.g., state compassion) at a significantly higher level than the next highest

124

elicited emotion (e.g., state gratitude), and 2) the target emotion (e.g., state compassion) would have been significantly higher in the target condition (e.g., compassion condition) compared to the condition with the next highest levels of that emotion (e.g., generalised positivity condition).

Barring the case of between-condition comparison of self-reported compassion, neither of these patterns emerged in Study 3. As an example, within the compassion condition, although self-reported compassion was the highest elicited emotion, it was not significantly higher compared to self-reported gratitude. A logical explanation exists.

Although the receipt of a favour is a typical elicitor of gratitude (Tong, 2015), it is plausible that witnessing a confederate’s distress regarding a family member who has cancer caused participants to appreciate their own circumstances (see Adler & Fagley, 2005 for an overview on appreciation). Note that gratitude is a form of the broader construct of appreciation (Adler

& Fagley, 2005).

The ANOVA approach used in Study 3 was admittedly conservative. If a less conservative approach were taken (e.g., comparing levels of the targeted emotion in the target conditions to levels of that targeted emotion in the neutral control condition), the inductions for pride, positivity, and compassion would have been considered successful (ps < .03). This is evidenced in the results of the structural model, as the impact of a given condition on self- reported emotion is in relation to the neutral condition. In fact, this approach controls for the potential influence of other conditions on a given emotion, and thus may be more valid that the simple comparisons approach outlined above in this paragraph. Using this latter approach, the gratitude manipulation was the only induction that failed to induce the targeted state.

One explanation for why this may have occurred stems from modifications made to the gratitude induction paradigm deployed in past studies (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Bartlett et al., 2012; DeSteno et al., 2010). Specifically, in past research, the computer appeared to

125

break only in the gratitude condition. In the present study, a decision was made to have the computer break in all conditions, and then either spontaneously fix or be fixed by the confederate. This decision was made in an effort to keep all aspects of the paradigm as similar as possible across conditions. Thus, it could be the case that the spontaneous fix in the neutral control, pride, generalised positivity, and compassion conditions induced a sense of relief at not having to do the problem-solving task not present in past research using the paradigm. Indeed, the overlap between gratitude and relief has been discussed at a theoretical level (Watkins, 2004). Therefore, the self-reported gratitude measure (i.e., “Right now, I feel grateful” and “How grateful/appreciative do you feel toward the other participant?”) could have captured both the interpersonal gratitude induced by the confederate fixing the computer and the relief associated with having the computer spontaneously fix and thus not having to re-complete the onerous task.

This change in paradigm might also explain why the gratitude condition led to lower compassion relative to the neutral control condition. A plausible explanation stems from the recognition that, when the confederate offered to stay and help fix the broken computer, the confederate’s continued participation in the experiment was of their own accord. In the other conditions, from the participant’s perspective, the confederate had been dismissed, but then ended up needing to stay. This dynamic, in fact, may have elicited a certain degree of compassion towards the confederate. Indeed, meta-analytic data suggests that targets who had greater control over the source of their adverse circumstances (e.g., chose to stay and fix the computer) elicited less sympathy (a state related to compassion) from others (Rudolph,

Roesch, Greitemeyer, & Weiner, 2004).

Due to length considerations, the remaining bleed-over effects will not be discussed in detail. Rather, I emphasise that interpersonal inductions of emotions are highly nuanced. Past research deploying these interpersonal paradigms has only ever examined their impact on

126

levels of the target emotion and generalised positivity. It is therefore unknown whether the bleed-over effects observed here are a function of the interpersonal inductions themselves

(e.g., the compassion paradigm in fact induces gratitude) or are a function of integrating many induction procedures into one paradigm. Inducing all three emotions (plus a generalised positivity control) via interpersonal inductions in the same study was an ambitious endeavour, but was crucial to meet the aim of comparing the unique effects of a range of discrete positive emotions on motivations and EWB subtypes at the state level of experience. Indeed this study is amongst the first to attempt such an all-encompassing interpersonal paradigm. To my knowledge, one other published study to date endeavoured to induce a range of emotions (admiration, adoration, awe, love, envy), though the inductions utilised autobiographical recall rather than interpersonal inductions (Schindler et al., 2015).

Results of that study revealed similar bleed-over effects, whereby self-reported admiration and adoration were elicited to the same extent in the admiration, adoration and awe conditions.

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION

To conclude, partial support was established for the proposed model at the state level of experience. State levels of pride significantly boosted self-focused EWB and this effect was carried via agency motivation. Whilst communion motivation positively predicted other- focused EWB, none of the induced, or measured, emotions elevated communion motivation.

While interpersonal inductions are important, especially in the case of socially-oriented emotions, other inductions are available that may present fewer concerns regarding bleed- over. Further, the question remains as to whether the extended proposed model applies at the state level. These questions were addressed by studies reported in Chapter 5.

127

Chapter 5. Extension to Moral Elevation and Admiration: The State Level of Experience

Study 3, reported in Chapter 4, assessed the differentiated relationships among the original proposed model (gratitude, compassion and pride) at the state level of experience.

The two studies reported in this chapter expanded examination of the state level of experience by considering the extended proposed model – including moral elevation and admiration.

Study 4a deployed inductions of two other-focused positive emotions: compassion and moral elevation. I chose to focus on moral elevation and compassion, rather than moral elevation and gratitude, given gratitude’s inconsistent relationship with motivations across Studies 1-3.

Study 4b focused on the outcomes of the self-focused positive emotion pride as well as admiration, which is both other- and self-focused in nature. Note that both pride and admiration are typically elicited by achievement – pride to achievements of the self (Mascolo

& Fischer, 1995; Tong, 2015) and admiration to the achievements of another (Algoe & Haidt,

2009). Even though each study only targeted two emotions, the other emotions from the extended proposed model (e.g., gratitude) were measured, as well as generalised positivity, in order to fully assess the model.

These two studies stand to further advance the field given the simultaneous consideration of more than one emotion from the same emotion family (e.g., self-focused). In doing so, these studies will inform research about differences and similarities of the impact of emotions from the same family on motivations and EWB subtypes. Indeed, the majority of past research examining the effects of discrete positive emotions on motivation and EWB have studied a single discrete emotion in comparison to only either a neutral or generalised

128

positivity condition as a control (e.g., gratitude: Bartlett et al., 2012; Williams & Bartlett,

2015; compassion: Condon & DeSteno, 2011; moral elevation: Schnall & Roper, 2012; Van de Vyver & Abrams, 2015; pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009; cf. Algoe & Haidt,

2009; Schindler et al., 2015; Siegel et al., 2014).

Before turning to Studies 4a and 4b in detail, methodological considerations relevant to the paradigms employed across these two studies will be reviewed. The first relates to the nature of the emotion inductions. Studies 4a and 4b utilised hypothetical vignettes. Although live and interpersonal emotion inductions such as those used in Study 3 are the most ecologically-valid induction method to use for emotions that are particularly social in nature

(Bartlett et al., 2012; Condon & DeSteno, 2011; Herrald & Tomaka, 2002; Williams &

DeSteno, 2008), asking participants to engage with hypothetical vignettes is also a sound approach used successfully to induce socially-oriented emotions (Karaçanta & Fitness, 2006;

Tracy & Robins, 2007; Wood et al., 2008). Hypothetical vignettes carry the benefit of being less resource-intensive, as they don’t require the use of confederates, and are less prone to paradigm suspicion.

The second consideration relates to assessment of state levels of moral elevation and admiration. Both emotions are elicited by the exemplary behaviour of others; admiration is a response to witnessing skill, achievement, or talent (Algoe & Haidt, 2009) and elevation occurs upon witnessing moral excellence (Haidt, 2003a). As such, it is not surprising that some adjectives can be used to describe the experience of both admiration and elevation (e.g., moved: Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Smith, 2010). With the goal of assessing whether moral elevation and admiration had been differentially elicited, items were selected based on between-condition comparisons in past research that have typically differentiated moral elevation and admiration. Specifically, past research suggests that levels of warmth, love and being morally uplifted are heightened during moral elevation inductions relative to

129

admiration inductions (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Smith, 2010), whereas levels of admiration, awe and respect are typically heightened during admiration relative to moral elevation inductions (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; cf. Smith, 2010 for admiration). Given this, these sets of terms were adopted as manipulation checks on the vignette inductions deployed in Studies 4a and 4b.

The third consideration relates to the measurement of motivation. Recall that in Study

3, none of the assessed emotions (i.e., gratitude, compassion, or pride) boosted communion motivation. One possible explanation for these null patterns is that the nurturance subscale of communion motivation was not relevant to university-aged participants (e.g., “If I could, I would hire a nurse to care for a sick child rather than do it myself”). In Studies 4a and 4b, communion motivation was measured using a scale anticipated to be more robust to age variation.

STUDY 4A

The overall aim of Study 4a was to examine the impact of state compassion and moral elevation on motivation and EWB subtypes. As detailed in Chapters 1 and 3, and visually represented in Figure 10, it was expected that compassion and moral elevation would have a similar influence on motivations and subtypes of EWB. Specifically, following a compassion or moral elevation induction, an increase in other-focused EWB relative to the neutral condition was predicted. Further, this link was expected to be causally explained by a corresponding increase in communion motivation. The effects stemming from state levels of other positive emotions (e.g., gratitude) were also assessed, but were not the primary focus of this study.

130

Communion motivation

Compassion Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Elevation

Agency motivation

Figure 10. Proposed model of the relationships between compassion, moral elevation, and eudaimonic wellbeing (Study 4a). Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger effects.

Method

Participants

In exchange for course credit, 155 psychology students from the University of New

South Wales completed this study. Data from eight students were excluded because they answered an attention check incorrectly (“Please select strongly agree, so that we know you are paying attention”). Subsequent analyses were therefore carried out on 147 participants

(gender: 65% female; ethnicity: 47% Asian, 40% White/Caucasian; Mage = 19.35, SDage =

2.61).

Procedure and Design

Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions in a between-subjects design: compassion, moral elevation, and neutral control. In

131

order to attenuate demand characteristics, participants were told that they were participating in two separate experiments. The first was portrayed as a narrative study, in which participants were exposed to the emotion induction and completed manipulation check and motivation measures. The second purportedly measured the relationship amongst individual difference variables, and involved participants completing measures of EWB subtypes and demographic variables (age, gender, and ethnicity).

Manipulations and Measures

Emotion inductions. A vignette induction method was deployed. In all conditions, participants were asked to read and imagine a short story. In the compassion condition, the vignette described the hardships experienced by a homeless man. The moral elevation vignette described the life story of a man that had dedicated his life to helping the homeless.

The neutral vignette included a description of the layout and services provided by a local community centre. Full vignettes can be found in Appendix C. The vignettes were designed to include the same thematic content (i.e., the homeless/welfare services) so as to keep that constant across conditions.

Emotion manipulation check. To maintain consistency with the cover story, the manipulation check was framed as an exercise in gathering normative data on people’s experience of the narrative task. Participants reported the degree to which certain terms described their current feelings using 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). The emotion descriptors of interest were interspersed amongst filler emotions (e.g., “anxiety” and

“envy”). A state compassion index was formed by the mean response to the items

“compassion” and “sympathetic” ( = .92). The responses to the three items “morally uplifted”, “warmth”, and “love” were averaged to form a state moral elevation index

( = .78). Responses to several other positive emotion descriptors were averaged to form indices of the other positive emotions in the model (i.e., state gratitude: “appreciative,”

132

“gratitude” [ = .79]; state pride: “pride,” “accomplished,” and “pleased” [ = .75]; state admiration: “admiration,” “awe,” and “respect” [ = .87]; and state generalised positivity:

“happiness,” “amused,” and “entertained” [ = .63]). The same or similar terms have been used to capture all of these states in past research (compassion: Condon & DeSteno, 2011;

Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011; moral elevation: Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Smith, 2010); gratitude:

Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Bartlett et al., 2012; pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009; generalised positivity: DeSteno et al., 2010; Williams & DeSteno, 2008; admiration: Algoe &

Haidt, 2009; Smith, 2010), and in Study 3 for compassion, pride, gratitude, and generalised positivity.

Motivation. Communion and agency motivations were assessed using the Needs

Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al., 1999) and the Compassionate Love Scale

(Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). These were the same scales that were used in Study 2b, but were modified to capture state, or momentary, feelings of motivation. For example, “I am a hard worker” was amended to “Right now, I feel like being a hard worker”. Agency motivation

( = .87) was assessed as the average response to the achievement (e.g., “Right now, I feel like being a hard worker”) and dominance (e.g., “Right now, I feel like taking an active role in the leadership of a group”) subscales of the Needs Assessment Questionnaire. Communion motivation ( = .85) was assessed as the mean responses to the affiliation (e.g., “Right now, I feel like being a people person”) subscale from the Needs Assessment Questionnaire and five items from the Compassionate Love Scale (e.g., “Right now, I feel like selflessly caring for most of humankind”). Specifically, and as in Study 2b, the five items with the highest-item- total correlation scores from the original development of the Compassionate Love Scale were selected to represent the nurturance facet of communion motivation. As described in Chapter

2, the grouping of achievement and dominance to represent agency motivation and affiliation

133

and nurturance to represent communion motivation is consistent with past research (Beck &

Miller, 2000; Grossbaum & Bates, 2002; McAdams et al., 1996).

Eudaimonic wellbeing. Self- and other-focused EWB was assessed using the 15-item version of Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales. Each of the five subscales included three items. In line with past research and Study 3, the wording of some items was modified to be congruent with the momentary instructions (Bosson et al., 2005). The scales of environmental mastery (e.g., “Right now, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live”), personal growth (e.g., “At this present moment, I would say that life has been a continuous process of learning, changing and growth”), purpose in life (e.g., “At this present moment, I don’t think that I am wandering aimlessly through life”) and self-acceptance (e.g.,

“I like most aspects of my personality at this current moment”) were averaged to form a self- focused EWB index (Burns & Machin, 2010, 2012). The positive relations with others subscale (e.g., “Right now, I think that people would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others”) represented other-focused EWB. This study used the shortened version of the scale (see Ryff & Keyes, 1995 for validation study) to accommodate time restrictions. Although internal consistency was acceptable for self-focused EWB

( = .81), it was low for other-focused EWB ( = .57). Unfortunately, scale-if-item-deleted analysis did not suggest improvement by dropping one of the three items.

Analytic Strategy

Consistent with Studies 1-3, structural equation modelling was carried out in Mplus

(Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Bootstrapping (using 1000 resamples, bias corrected; Mackinnon et al., 2004) was used to examine indirect effects and total effects. Three sets of analysis were conducted: estimates of total effects, component paths, and indirect effects. Any relevant difference scores were computed (Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Note that

134

an alternate order of the model was not considered as emotions were induced rather than measured at the trait level. There was no missing data.

Results

Manipulation Check

A mixed ANOVA with self-reported state emotion as the within-subjects factor (six levels: compassion, moral elevation, gratitude, pride, admiration, and generalised positivity) and emotion condition as the between-subjects factor (three levels: compassion, moral elevation, and neutral control) was computed to test whether the vignettes successfully induced the targeted states. Means appear in Figure 11. Mauchly’s test of sphericity revealed that the assumption of sphericity was violated for the main effect of self-reported state emotion χ2(14) = 57.01, p < .001. Therefore, following recommendations from Girden (1992) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), degrees of freedom were corrected using the Huynh-Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε =.91). The main effects of emotion condition, F(2, 144) = 14.72, p <

.001, ηp² = .17, and self-reported state emotion, F(4.55, 655.46) = 74.05, p < .001, ηp² = .34, were qualified by a significant interaction between these two factors, F(9.10, 655.46) =

43.69, p < .001, ηp² = .38.

Pairwise comparisons were carried out using the approach advocated by Tong (2015) and deployed in Study 3. First, pairwise comparisons were made between the target emotion and the second highest elicited emotion within each condition. State compassion was significantly higher than state gratitude in the compassion condition, Mdifference = 0.86, p < .001, 95% CI [0.43, 1.29]. No comparison was conducted within the moral elevation condition given that state moral elevation was not the highest reported emotion.

The second stage of analysis involved examining whether a particular state emotion was rated more highly in the condition targeting that emotion compared to the condition that elicited the next-highest level of that emotion. State compassion was significantly higher in

135

the compassion condition compared to the moral elevation condition, Mdifference = 1.42, p < .001, 95% CI [0.89, 1.94], and state moral elevation was significantly higher in the moral elevation condition compared to the neutral condition, Mdifference = 1.09, p < .001, 95% CI

[0.55, 1.63].

136

1 Neutral Conditon Compassion Condition Moral Elevation Condition

State Compassion State Elevation State Gratitude State Pride State Admiration State Positivity

Figure 11. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for Study 4a. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

137

In order to explore patterns of the non-focal emotions (i.e., with no targeted eliciting condition: gratitude, pride, and admiration), as well as generalised positivity, levels of these state emotions in the neutral control condition were compared with levels reported in the compassion and moral elevation conditions. Firstly, state gratitude in the neutral control condition was significantly lower than in both the compassion condition (Mdifference = -1.50, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.15, -0.86]) and elevation condition (Mdifference = -1.07, p = .001, 95% CI

[-1.72, -0.42]). Secondly, state pride in the neutral condition was significantly higher than in the compassion condition (Mdifference = 0.65, p = .01, 95% CI [0.19, 1.11]), but significantly lower than the moral elevation condition (Mdifference = -0.54, p = .02, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.07]).

Thirdly, state admiration in the neutral condition was significantly lower than in both the compassion condition (Mdifference = -0.89, p = .001, 95% CI [-1.42, -0.35]) and moral elevation condition (Mdifference = -2.39, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.93, -1.85]). Finally, state generalised positivity in the neutral condition was significantly higher than in the compassion condition

(Mdifference = 1.01, p < .001, 95% CI [0.60, 1.41]), but equivalent to levels in the moral elevation condition (p = .99). Thus, relative to the neutral control condition, the compassion condition raised levels of state gratitude and admiration, but reduced levels of state pride and generalised positivity. Relative to the neutral control condition, the moral elevation condition raised levels of state gratitude, pride, and admiration, but did not change levels of generalised positivity. These findings emerged even though these non-focal states were not targeted by the vignettes.

Model Testing

Descriptive statistics and correlations between measured constructs appear in Table

9, and significant standardised estimates for the proposed model appear in Figure 12. Recall, just as in Study 3, the neutral condition was not explicitly modelled. Two dummy variables specified group membership (i.e., compassion condition: 0 = no, 1 = yes; moral elevation

138

condition: 0 = no, 1 = yes). Thus, the estimated effects stemming from the dummy-coded condition variables to self-reported emotion reflect the effect of being in that condition relative to the neutral control group. The tolerance statistics for all sets of possible regressions in the structural equation model were computed to assess multicollinearity. All tolerance values were above the .10, assuaging multicollinearity concerns (Kline, 2011).

The influence of the focal and non-focal emotions on motivations and EWB subtypes was assessed via state emotion rather than condition for three reasons: 1) both compassion and moral elevation were elicited at similar levels in the moral elevation condition, 2) many of the non-focal emotions were also impacted by the compassion and moral elevation condition, and 3) for consistency with the analytic approach used in Study 3. Note also that a similar approach has been deployed in prior research (e.g., Schindler et al., 2015).

Assessing the fit of the model in Figure 12 was required given that was not fully- saturated (Kline, 2011). Model fit was excellent according to recommended cut-offs (Hu &

Bentler, 1999; Matsunaga, 2010), χ²(8) = 7.40, p = .50; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 1.00; SRMR =

0.02.

139

Table 9

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all conditions combined; Study 4a)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Compassion 3.72 1.79 - 2. Moral Elevation 2.86 1.49 .29 - 3. Gratitude 3.70 1.74 .57 .52 - 4. Pride 2.38 1.25 .03 .64 .39 - 5. Admiration 3.26 1.67 .45 .63 .53 .55 - 6. Positivity 2.21 1.13 .01 .61 .26 .63 .44 - 7. Communion Motivation 4.10 0.79 .49 .31 .48 .25 .42 .15 - 8. Agency Motivation 3.79 0.87 .38 .23 .40 .28 .27 .15 .63 - 9. Other-focused EWB 4.64 0.85 .01 -.17 -.02 -.12 -.06 -.20 .24 .07 - 10. Self-focused EWB 4.37 0.62 .00 -.15 -.08 -.12 -.18 -.24 .07 .11 .59 Note. All correlations greater than +/- .17 are significant at p < .05 and displayed in bold.

140

Communion State .31 motivation

compassion .42 .79 .41 .32 2

State elevation Other-focused .34 Compassion -.15† eudaimonic wellbeing Condition .20 .41 State gratitude .29 .51 .59 .20 -.25 0 Elevation State Condition .20 .67 pride Self-focused

.30 eudaimonic wellbeing .25 -.20† State admiration

-.42

-.25 State Agency positivity motivation Figure 12. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 4a). All listed estimates are significant at p < .05, unless marked with † suggesting significance at p < .10. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variances. Error variances for self-reported emotion are as follows: compassion with elevation, 0.56; compassion with gratitude, 0.47; compassion with pride, 0.25, compassion with admiration, 0.49; compassion with positivity, 0.39; elevation with gratitude, 0.63; elevation with pride, 0.58; elevation with admiration, 0.60; elevation with positivity, 0.58; gratitude with pride, 0.51; gratitude with admiration, 0.54; gratitude with positivity, 0.45; pride with admiration, 0.57; pride with positivity, 0.58, and admiration with positivity, 0.56.

141

Condition to state emotion. The links between emotion condition and state emotions corresponded to findings from the ANOVA reported above. State elevation was only predicted from the elevation condition and marginally negatively predicted from the compassion condition; state compassion was predicted from both the moral elevation and compassion condition. State generalised positivity and pride were negatively predicted from the compassion condition, whereas state admiration and generalised positivity were positively predicted from the compassion condition. Further, state pride, admiration, and gratitude were all positively predicted from the moral elevation condition.

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. Contrary to predictions, total effects of the focal positive emotions moral elevation and compassion on EWB subtypes were non-significant, as were all total effects stemming from the non-focal emotions pride, gratitude, and admiration.

Unexpectedly, the total effect of generalised positivity on self-focused EWB was negative and significant, β = -0.25, p = .04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.01].

Emotions to motivations. State compassion impacted motivation, boosting both communion and agency motivations. Against model predictions, the link from state compassion to communion motivation was not significantly stronger than the corresponding link to agency motivation, p = 0.52. State pride and gratitude also boosted agency motivation.

Motivations to EWB. Communion motivation predicted other-focused EWB, as expected. However, agency motivation did not boost self-focused EWB, which was a primary predicted link.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Two significant indirect effects were observed: compassion to other-focused EWB via communion motivation, β = 0.13, p = .01, 95% CI

[0.05, 0.24], providing partial support for the proposed model, and confirming the results of

Studies 1a and 1b. Additionally, gratitude predicted other-focused EWB via communion

142

motivation, β = 0.09, p = .04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.20], supporting the proposed model and replicating Study 1b.

Gender effects. Just as with all previous studies (1a, 1b, 2b, 3), the inclusion of gender as a predictor of motivations and EWB did not substantially alter any of the proposed relationships. The largest difference across the two models (with and without gender) was trivial, at 0.01. Additionally, no gender differences emerged for state positive emotions, motivations, or subtypes of EWB, ts < 1.78, ps > .10.

Discussion

Study 4a tested whether state compassion and moral elevation would impact motivations and subtypes of EWB as per the extended proposed model. Study 4a deployed a vignette method to induce moral elevation and compassion and measure subsequent downstream effects on state levels of motivations and EWB subtypes, while controlling for the influence of other state positive emotions (gratitude, pride, admiration) and state generalised positivity.

Evidence for Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. State compassion boosted communion motivation as well as agency motivation. In turn, communion motivation boosted other-focused EWB and the following indirect pathway was observed: state compassion  communion motivation  other-focused EWB. This indirect pathway was also observed in Studies 1a, 1b and 2b at the trait level. In relation to the non-focal positive emotions in the proposed model, which were measured but not induced in this study, state pride boosted agency motivation and state gratitude increased communion motivation. The following indirect pathway was found for gratitude: state gratitude  communion motivation  other-focused EWB. These results for gratitude and pride align with the proposed model.

143

Expected, not observed links. One unexpected finding was the absent link between state moral elevation and communion motivation. Extant research has demonstrated that moral elevation increases communion motivation (Aquino et al., 2011; Erickson & Abelson,

2012; Freeman et al., 2009; Schnall & Roper, 2012; Schnall et al., 2010; Siegel et al., 2014;

Thomson et al., 2014; Silvers & Haidt, 2008; Van de Vyver & Abrams, 2015), yet this link did not emerge in Study 4a. One reason may stem from the fact that past research has studied moral elevation in isolation from compassion. Indeed, Table 9 reveals a significant raw correlation between state moral elevation and communion motivation, as well as a significant raw correlation between state moral elevation and compassion. But once the relationship between moral elevation and communion motivation was modelled simultaneously with compassion, compassion drove the relationship to communion motivation. Note that compassion and moral elevation have overlapping elicitors. Moral elevation is typically experienced when an individual witnesses someone helping a vulnerable individual (Algoe &

Haidt, 2009), whereas compassion is experienced by just witnessing the vulnerable individual

(Goetz et al., 2010). Based on the current data, it is possible that in situations that elicit moral elevation, it is in fact compassion felt towards the vulnerable individual that drives communion motivation rather than the moral elevation elicited by the agent of help. In other words, witnessing someone assist a vulnerable individual may not be sufficient to prompt communal motivation over and above that stemming from compassion elicited by the vulnerable individual.

The expected total effects of the focal emotions compassion and moral elevation on other-focused EWB did not emerge. However, the indirect of compassion on other-focused

EWB via communion motivation was significant. Although the direct effect of compassion to other-focused EWB was not significant, it was indeed negative, thus countering the positive indirect effect in the estimation of the total effect. Given the negligible link between moral

144

elevation and communion motivation, it is unsurprising that the total effect of moral elevation on other-focused EWB was not significant given the theoretical rationale for the important role of that mechanism in producing the anticipated effect.

A third unexpected finding was the missing link between agency and self-focused

EWB, a link observed across Studies 1a, 2b, and 3. Examination of the descriptive statistics

(Table 9) reveals that the variability of self-focused EWB in Study 4a was relatively lower than in Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, and 3 (e.g., 0.87 in Study 1a, 0.62 in this study). This lower variability may have contributed to the absent link (i.e., restricted range: Phillips &

Freedman, 1985). One explanation for the reduced variability may stem from the use of the shorter rather than the full-length version of Ryff’s (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales.

Although state compassion was expected to boost both types of motivation, it was expected to have a stronger link to communion motivation. However, the pathways were equivalent in strength. As highlighted in Chapter 1, there is evidence to suggest that compassionate individuals may experience a sense of agency motivation when they enact the relevant prosocial functional behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Based on the results of Study 4a, it is possible that compassion contributes equally to communion and agency motivations. Final discussion of this point is reseverd for the General Discussion (Chapter 8).

Unexpected, observed links. It is worth noting that state generalised positivity negatively impacted self-focused EWB in the form of a total effect. This goes directly against predictions made by Fredrickson’s (1998) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.

This negative relationship was not, however, observed in Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, or 3. The inconsistent results may stem from the different variants of generalised positivity assessed across studies. In Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b trait-level positivity was measured in the form of contentment (e.g., “I am at peace with my life”). In Studies 4a, state-level positivity was assessed as the average index of self-reported happiness, amusement, and entertainment.

145

Although the state-level assessment of positivity in Study 3 also included happiness and amusement, the third descriptor was “content,” thus perhaps resulting in an assessed construct more similar to Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b. Indeed, certain forms of humour (e.g., aggressive or self-defeating humour) are negatively related to self-esteem (a component of self-focused

EWB; Kuiper, Grimshaw, Leite, & Kirsh, 2004; Vaughan, Zeigler-Hill, & Arnau, 2014). This may suggest that generalised positivity is in and of itself a construct that can be differentiated and that care should be taken in the measurement of positivity.

Although not a focal emotion, it is noteworthy that state admiration negatively

(marginally) predicted self-focused EWB, which was against model predictions. This raises the possibility that state admiration that does not promote agency or communion motivation may be harmful. Indeed, such admiration may resemble envy, which has documented negative links to self-focused EWB (Appel, Crusius, & Gerlach, 2015; Smith, Parrott, Diener,

Hoyle, & Kim, 1999).

Emotion Inductions

In comparison to Study 3, the induction of compassion was more successful as no bleed-over effects emerged. Specifically, state compassion was the key elicited emotion in the compassion condition, as evidenced by the significant pairwise comparisons both within and across conditions. However, although state moral elevation was higher in the moral elevation condition compared to the next highest eliciting condition (neutral control), state admiration was the highest elicited emotion in the moral elevation condition. This bleed-over of admiration into the moral elevation condition corroborates the related nature of these constructs: they both involve the veneration of another; admiration to skill and moral elevation to kindness (Algoe & Haidt, 2009). In hindsight, the pattern observed in Study 4a is not particularly suprising as it replicates past investigations (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Smith,

2010). Indeed, it is logical that in addition to feeling morally elevated (i.e., “morally

146

uplifted”, “warmth”, and “love”) after reading about the life story of a man that had dedicated his life to helping the homeless, participants also felt “admiration”, “respect”, and “awe” (i.e., admiration descriptor terms) in relation to the man’s skills (e.g., empathy, organisational skills). The blurred language of the admiration terms is a second possibility (Algoe & Haidt,

2009; Scherer, 1994; Smith, 2010). That is, participants admired the man not for his skills per se, but for his moral virtue and kindness.

Participants reported lowered pride, generalised positivity and moral elevation as a function of the compassion induction. One possible explanation is that the homelessness vignette deployed in the compassion condition may have elicited negative states (e.g., guilt, sadness, embarrassment, and/or regret; Lagotte, 2014) that were captured by the measures of pride, generalised positivity and moral elevation (negative states and generalised positivity inverse relationship: van der Ploeg, Brosschot, Thayer, & Verkuil, 2016; Watson et al., 1988; negative states and pride inverse relationship: Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Auweele,

2009; Watson et al., 1988; negative states and moral elevation inverse relationship: Erickson

& Abelson, 2012). Notably the moral elevation vignette was less focused on homelessness, instead highlighting the work of one individual to alleviate homelessness. As such, it is possible that the latter vignette elicited less negativity. Future work deploying these vignettes should take care to also measure negative states so as to explicitly test this possibility.

Conclusion

To conclude, partial support was found for the proposed model. State compassion, but not state moral elevation, boosted communion motivation, which in turn was related to other- focused EWB. The corresponding indirect effect (i.e., state compassion  communion motivation  other-focused EWB) was significant. No total effects of the focal emotions moral elevation and compassion on EWB subtypes emerged. In relation to the non-focal emotions, an indirect effect was observed from state gratitude to other-focused EWB via

147

communion motivation, in line with the proposed model. Although state pride boosted agency motivation, agency motivation was not significantly related to self-focused EWB, likely due to the lower variability observed in this scale compared to previous dissertation studies.

STUDY 4B

The overall aim of Study 4b was similar to Study 4a: to examine the effects of two positive emotions – pride and admiration – on motivations and EWB subtypes at the state level of experience. Hypotheses mirrored past predictions regarding these emotions.

Specifically, it was expected that state pride would primarily promote self-focused EWB due to its influence on agency motivation. State admiration was expected to boost both other- focused and self-focused EWB because of its positive influence on communion and agency motivations, respectively. These predictions are depicted in Figure 13.

Communion motivation

Pride Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Admiration

Agency motivation

Figure 13. Proposed model of the relationships between pride, admiration, and eudaimonic wellbeing (Study 4b). Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger effects.

148

Method

Participants

One hundred and sixty psychology students participated for course credit. Data from seven students who did not answer an attention check (“Please select strongly agree, so that we know you are paying attention”) correctly were excluded from analyses. Reported analyses were therefore carried out on 153 participants (gender: 69% female; ethnicity: 53%

Asian, 35% White/Caucasian; Mage = 20.12, SDage = 3.81).

Procedure and Design

Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: pride, admiration, or neutral. The cover story was the same as Study 4a. That is, participants were led to believe that they were participating in two different studies, one on narratives and the other on individual differences.

Manipulations and Measures

Emotion inductions. A vignette induction method was used; full vignettes appear in

Appendix D. In all conditions, participants were asked the name of a close friend who was also studying at the University of New South Wales. In the admiration condition, this name was inserted into a story in which the participant’s friend had been awarded the University

Medal (i.e., the top academic honour for undergraduates at the university). The exact same vignette was used in the pride condition, except that the participant was asked to imagine themselves winning the honour. To be consistent with the academic theme, the neutral vignette involved the participant imagining reading an email about policy regarding assessment results from the University of New South Wales.

Emotion manipulation check. Just as with Study 4a, participants reported the degree to which certain terms described their current feelings using 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). All scales were identical to those used in Study 4a (pride:  = .92, admiration:

149

 = .89, gratitude:  = .90, compassion:  = .83, moral elevation:  = .89, and positivity:

 = .82).

Motivation and EWB. All measures of motivations and EWB subtypes were identical to those used in Study 4a (agency motivation:  = .88, communion motivation:

 = .80, other-focused EWB:  = .66, self-focused EWB:  = .75). Note that here in Study

4b, the internal reliability of the other-focused EWB scale was considerably higher than in

Study 4a, and neared acceptable standards.

Analytic Strategy

Consistent with Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, and 4a, Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2015) was used to test the structural equation model. Three sets of analyses were conducted (total effects, constituent pathways, and indirect effects). The computation of difference scores

(Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) between any of these three sets of effects was not required. Again, note that an alternate model order was not considered due to the fact that emotions were induced rather than measured at the trait level.

With regard to missing data, pairwise deletion (i.e., the default Mplus option for maximum likelihood estimation) was employed. Of the 153 participants, 151 were complete observations, and two participants had data missing from either one or two variables.

Results

Manipulation Check

A mixed ANOVA with state emotion (pride, admiration, gratitude, compassion, moral elevation, and generalised positivity) as the within-subjects factor and emotion condition

(pride, admiration, and neutral) as the between-subjects factor explored the impact of condition on participants’ emotional states. The assumption of sphericity was violated for the main effect of state emotion χ2(14) = 76.94, p < .001. Consequently degrees of freedom were corrected using the Huynh-Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε =.84; Girden, 1992; Tabachnick &

150

Fidell, 2001). Means are depicted in Figure 14. Similarly to Study 4a, the main effects of emotion condition, F(2, 148) = 112.89, p < .001, ηp² = .60, and state emotion, F(4.21,

623.24)) = 72.83, p < .001, ηp² = .33, were qualified by a significant interaction between these two factors, F(8.42, 623.24) = 18.18, p < .001, ηp² = .20.

To explore that nature of this interaction, pairwise comparisons were made following

Tong's (2015) approach. Firstly, pairwise comparisons were conducted between the target emotion and the second highest elicited emotion within each condition. State pride was significantly higher than state gratitude in the pride condition, Mdifference = 0.53, p = .001, 95%

CI [0.21, 0.85]. Conversely, state admiration was significantly higher than state pride in the admiration condition, Mdifference = 0.30, p = .05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.59].

151

Neutral Conditon Pride Condition Admiration Condition

State Pride State Admiration State Gratitude State Compassion State Elevation State Positivity

Figure 14. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for Study 4b. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

152

Secondly, pairwise comparisons assessed whether the targeted emotion was rated more highly in the target condition compared to the condition that elicited the next highest level of the targeted emotion. State pride was significantly higher in the pride condition compared to the admiration condition, Mdifference = 0.64, p = .02, 95% CI [0.11, 1.16].

Similarly, state admiration was significantly higher in the admiration condition compared to the pride condition, Mdifference = 0.55, p = .03, 95% CI [0.06, 1.04].

To explore the impact of conditions on non-focal emotions and generalised positivity, and following the approach used in Study 4a, levels of these state emotions in the neutral control condition were compared with levels reported in the pride and admiration conditions.

All states were significantly lower in the neutral control condition compared to both the pride condition (gratitude: Mdifference = -2.59, p < .001, 95% CI [-3.23, -1.96]; compassion:

Mdifference = -1.15, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.62, -0.68]; moral elevation: Mdifference = -2.93, p < .001, 95% CI [-3.43, -2.42]; and generalised positivity: Mdifference = -2.56, p < .001, 95%

CI [-3.03, -2.09]) and admiration condition (gratitude: Mdifference = -2.04, p < .001, 95% CI [-

2.68, -1.40]; compassion: Mdifference = -1.70, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.19, -1.22]; moral elevation:

Mdifference = -3.49, p < .001, 95% CI [-4.01, -2.97]; and generalised positivity: Mdifference = -

3.00, p < .001, 95% CI [-3.48, -2.52]).

Model Testing

Descriptive statistics and correlations between measured constructs appear in Table

10, and significant standardised estimates for the proposed model appear in Figure 15. To test for multicollinearity, tolerance statistics for all sets of regressions were computed.

Multicollinearity concerns were assuaged given that all values were above .10 (Kline, 2011).

153

Table 10

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all conditions combined; Study 4b)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Pride 4.11 2.09 - 2. Admiration 3.78 2.01 .84 - 3. Gratitude 3.94 1.96 .81 .75 - 4. Compassion 2.40 1.40 .51 .63 .50 - 5. Moral Elevation 3.42 2.00 .84 .86 .73 .58 - 6. Positivity 3.32 1.78 .81 .83 .73 .64 .84 - 7. Communion Motivation 3.59 0.86 .42 .47 .38 .39 .44 .40 - 8. Agency Motivation 4.11 0.91 .53 .52 .47 .38 .48 .48 .54 - 9. Other-focused EWB 4.59 0.95 .04 .02 .11 .01 .06 .08 .14 .14 - 10. Self-focused EWB 4.38 0.61 .05 -.05 .03 -.04 -.01 .05 -.01 .15 .51 Note. All correlations greater than .38 are significant at p < .05 and displayed in bold.

154

Communion motivation State pride

.68 .27†

State .85 admiration Other-focused Pride .74 .84 eudaimonic wellbeing .29† Condition .64 State -.36 gratitude .49 .38 .51 .16† .38 Admiration State Condition .59 .81 compassion Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing .79 .69 .24 State elevation

.70

State Agency positivity motivation Figure 15. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 4b). All listed estimates are significant at p < .05, unless marked with † suggesting significance at p < .10. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variances. Error variances for self-reported emotion are as follows: pride with admiration, 0.66; pride with gratitude, 0.72; pride with compassion, 0.32, pride with elevation, 0.68; pride with positivity; 0.61; admiration with gratitude, 0.64; admiration with compassion, 0.46; admiration with elevation, 0.67; admiration with positivity, 0.60; gratitude with compassion, 0.37; gratitude with elevation, 0.59; gratitude with positivity, 0.62; compassion with elevation, 0.36; compassion with positivity, 0.47 and elevation with positivity, 0.65.

155

Although the manipulations of the focal emotions of pride and admiration were successful (i.e., there was little evidence of bleed over either within or across conditions), all the non-focal emotions were also significantly elevated in the pride and admiration conditions as compared to the neutral control condition. Following the approach of Studies 3 and 4a, modelling was assessed via self-reported emotion rather than condition.

Model fit was assessed given that the model was not fully saturated. Model fit was acceptable according to established guidelines (Hu & Bentler, 1999; see Matsunaga, 2010 for an overview of recommended cut-offs), χ²(8) = 13.95, p = .08; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 1.00;

SRMR = 0.02.

Condition to state emotion. The links between emotion condition and self-reported emotions corresponded to findings from the ANOVA reported above. All focal and non-focal emotions were positively predicted from both the pride and admiration conditions.

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. In line with the proposed model, a marginally significant total effect of state gratitude on other-focused EWB was observed, β = 0.31, p =

.07, 95% CI [0.00, 0.64]. Against expectations, a marginally significant negative total effect of state admiration on self-focused EWB was observed, β = -0.34, p = .06, 95% CI [-0.69,

0.01]. All other total effects were nonsignificant.

Emotions to motivations. The focal emotion pride boosted agency motivation (albeit at a marginally significant level), however, state admiration did not significantly impact either type of motivation. Additionally, while not of central focus in this study, state compassion boosted communion motivation, though this path was marginally significant.

Motivations to EWB. Agency motivation predicted self-focused EWB as expected, but the expected link from communion motivation to other-focused EWB was not observed.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Although pride marginally boosted agency motivation and agency motivation boosted self-focused EWB, the indirect effect formed by

156

these two links was not significant. Further, none of the other indirect effects were significant.

Gender effects. In line with Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, and 4a, gender was modelled as a predictor of both motivations and EWB to assess whether gender altered any of the proposed model’s pathways. Consistent with all past studies, this exploratory analysis revealed no significant differences across models (with and without gender), despite gender differences emerging for both types of motivation (communion motivation: Mfemales = 3.72,

SDfemales = 0.83, Mmales = 3.30, SDmales = 0.86, t(151) = 2.87, p = .01, d = 0.50; agency motivation: Mfemales = 4.22, SDfemales = 0.84, Mmales = 3.86, SDmales = 1.01, t(150) = 2.26, p =

.03, d = 0.39). The largest observed parameter estimate difference was 0.05.

Discussion

Study 4b examined the influence of state admiration and pride on motivations and

EWB subtypes at the state level of experience. This was achieved using a vignette induction approach. Other state positive emotions from the extended model (gratitude, compassion, and moral elevation) and generalised positivity were assessed.

Evidence for the Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. State pride boosted agency motivation (albeit at a marginally significant level) and agency motivation increased self-focused EWB.

Additionally, state compassion boosted communion motivation (again, albeit at a marginally significant level). These findings replicate several patterns observed in Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, and 4a. A significant total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB was observed, replicating past trait-level studies (1a, 1b, and 2b).

Expected, not observed links. A key surprising finding was the failure to detect a link between state admiration and motivations, given that past research supported this prediction (admiration to agency motivation: Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Lockwood & Kunda,

157

1997, 1999) admiration to communion motivation: Algoe & Haidt, 2009). A similar explanation to that raised in Study 1a regarding gratitude’s negligible relationship with communion motivation is provided here: past research has often studied positive emotions in isolation when examining downstream effects on motivation and EWB. Therefore, once considered simultaneously, the parsing of shared variance may result in a demonstrably different outcome. With regard to the absent link from state admiration to agency motivation, note that Table 10 reveals a positive raw correlation between state admiration and pride, and that, on their own, both correlated significantly with agency motivation. When state admiration and pride were modelled simultaneously, however, it appears that state pride carried the story. Indeed, according to social comparison research, witnessing the excellence of others can cause an individual to think about their own successes and other similarities shared with the skilled other (see Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002 for an overview). The results of the current study suggest that the main driving force for boosting agency motivation is feeling proud of one’s own achievements rather than admiring the achievements of others.

Turning to the absent link between state admiration and communion motivation,

Table 10 reveals that state admiration correlated positively with state compassion, and that both emotions also correlated with communion motivation. However, when modelled simultaneously, state compassion was the only emotion that marginally boosted communion motivation. Indeed, the eliciting situation of admiration may also induce a sense of compassion if the triumphant individual had to overcome obstacles to achieve a certain goal or particular talent level (Immordino-Yang, 2011), which is supported by Study 4b’s manipulation check result that compassion was elevated in the admiration condition relative to the neutral condition. Although the induction used in Study 4b did not explicitly mention any obstacles, it is of course possible that the participant’s close friend (who they were asked to imagine winning the University Medal) has experienced adversity at some point in their

158

life. The current results suggest that the compassion felt for the talented individual drives communion motivation rather than the admiration of the individual’s achievements.

Moreover, the second unexpected finding was the absent link between communion motivation and other-focused EWB. This absent link would have also contributed to both the insignificant total effect of state admiration on other-focused EWB and the insignificant indirect effect of state admiration on other-focused EWB via communion motivation.

Notably, a marginally significant total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB was observed, however communion motivation was not the mechanism for this relationship

(replicating studies 1a and 2b). This particular finding from Study 4b strengthens the possibility, detailed previously, that other mechanisms exist to explain the relationship between gratitude and other-focused EWB, such as positive reappraisal (Folkman &

Moskowitz, 2000; Lambert et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2012) or optimism (Lyubomirsky,

2001; Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998; Wood et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2008).

The final unexpected finding was the lack of a total effect of state pride on self- focused EWB. This total effect was observed in all trait-level Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b, but only in state-level Study 3. Paired with the current findings of Study 4b, it is possible that the effect of pride on self-focused EWB might be more robust for trait levels of the emotion.

Moreover, the corresponding indirect effect via agency motivation was not observed in Study

4b, despite the two component pathways emerging (though the pride  agency motivation link was only marginally significant). Note that an indirect effect was observed in Study 3, but only the first component pathway emerged in Study 4a. The nature of this indirect effect, and indeed the total effect, will be assessed in the meta-analysis presented in Chapter 7.

Unexpected, observed links. Another surprising finding was that the total effect of state admiration on self-focused EWB was negative. It appears that this finding was driven by the negative direct effect of state admiration on self-focused EWB, replicating the findings of

159

Study 4a and strengthening the notion that admiration without either agency or communion motivation may be deleterious. Again, it is possible that such admiration resembles envy, which indeed has been documented to have negative links to self-focused EWB (Appel et al.,

2015; Smith et al., 1999).

Emotion Inductions

Recall that in Study 4a admiration was the highest elicited emotion within the moral elevation condition, corroborating the related nature of the state emotions (Algoe & Haidt,

2009). However, when admiration was targeted via strong academic performance (i.e., the admiration vignette in Study 4b), there was no bleed over of state moral elevation into the admiration condition, consistent with the notion that admiration is the emotional experience of admiring someone’s skill (Algoe & Haidt, 2009), whereas moral elevation occurs upon witnessing moral excellence (Haidt, 2003a). In other words, this finding shows that while admiration can be elicited via an induction designed to elicit moral elevation (see Study 4a), the converse is not true; the eliciting conditions of moral elevation are unique from those eliciting admiration. This point further addresses concerns raised in Study 2b as to the distinctness of moral elevation and admiration.

Conclusion

To conclude, Study 4b provided partial support for the proposed model. State pride, but not state admiration, marginally boosted agency motivation. While agency motivation predicted self-focused EWB, the corresponding indirect effect of pride on self-focused EWB via agency motivation was not significant. Expected results for admiration were not observed.

Additionally, the non-focal emotion compassion marginally boosted communion motivation.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

The two studies detailed in Chapter 5 incorporated two additional positive emotions – moral elevation and admiration – into the proposed model at the state level of experience.

160

Specifically, Study 4a adopted a focus on the effects of state compassion and moral elevation and Study 4b on state pride and admiration, while also measuring non-focal emotions from the extended proposed model. Across both studies, several pathways from both pride and compassion to motivation were observed, as per the proposed model. That is, compassion boosted communion motivation and pride agency motivation. Additionally, in Study 4a, compassion had an indirect effect on other-focused EWB via communion motivation, as per the proposed model. Note, however, the support for the paths of the emotions added to the extended proposed model, namely moral elevation and admiration, was not obtained.

161

Chapter 6. Extension of Compassion and Pride: Behavioural Measures of Motivation at the State Level of Experience

Across Studies 1a, 2b, and 3, pride’s relationship with self-focused EWB was explained via agency motivation. Similarly, across Studies 1a, 1b, 2b and 4a compassion’s relationship with other-focused EWB was explained via communion motivation. The studies reported in this chapter (Studies 5a and 5b) focused on these two emotions and adopted behaviour-based measures of communion and agency motivations. As such, the studies reported in Chapter 6 address the limitations associated with sole reliance on self-report data

(e.g., common method variance; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).

I will first review methodological considerations before describing Studies 5a and 5b in more detail. Recall that in Studies 4a and 4b, the vignette approach was used to induce compassion and pride, respectively. The pride vignette utilised a first-person perspective, namely by asking the participant to imagine themselves in an achievement-related context.

The compassion vignette, on the other hand, utilised a third-person perspective, in which the participant imagined the hardships of another person. Studies 5a and 5b each included both a pride and compassion induction. In an attempt to eliminate the confound between emotion and perspective (i.e., first- vs. third-person perspectives could in and of themselves produce differential results on motivations and EWB subtypes) that would be raised by using these vignettes in the same study, Study 5a adopted autobiographical recall as the emotion induction method. While the idiographic nature of autobiographical recall necessitates a loss of consistency across participants, autobiographical recall has nonetheless been successfully

162

used to induce socially-oriented emotions (e.g., Siedlecka, Capper, & Denson, 2015; van der

Schalk, Bruder, & Manstead, 2012). However, in light of weak support for the proposed model in Study 5a, Study 5b returned to the vignette approach, though with modifications to make the pride and compassion vignette more similar.

As detailed in Chapter 1, motivation can be accurately assessed using non self-report methods. For example, agentically-motivated behaviour such as goal perseverance (Williams

& DeSteno, 2008, 2009) and communally-motivated behaviour such as helping others

(Condon & DeSteno, 2011) have been assessed following pride and compassion inductions, respectively. Across Studies 5a and 5b, motivation was measured behaviourally via two choices that tapped into relative preference for agentically-oriented tasks or communally- oriented tasks. Specifically, in the first choice, participants opted to sign up for articles related to being successful (agency) or articles related to helping to solve world problems

(communion). In the second choice, participants opted to write either about themselves

(agency) or about others (communion).

The studies reported in Chapter 6 only measured generalised positivity and not the other focal emotions (i.e., gratitude, moral elevation, and admiration). This decision was made due to overall restrictions on study duration and with the aim to reduce the time delay between emotion induction and behavioral measurement of motivation.

STUDY 5A

The overall aim of Study 5a was to assess the impact of pride and compassion on

EWB subtypes at the state level of experience. Rather than self-report measures of motivation

(as used for Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 4a, and 4b), behavioural motivation measures were adopted. The hypotheses for Study 5a align with the proposed model. That is, pride was expected to primarily influence self-focused EWB due to boosts in agency motivation and

163

compassion was expected to primarily impact other-focused EWB via increases in communion motivation. These hypotheses are depicted in Figure 16.

Communion motivation

Compassion Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Self-focused Eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 16. Proposed model of the relationships between pride, compassion, and eudaimonic wellbeing (Study 5a). Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger effects.

Method

Participants

In exchange for course credit, 157 undergraduate psychology students at the

University of New South Wales participated in this study. However, data from two participants were excluded as they incorrectly answered an attention check question (“When you get to this item, please select moderately”). Final analyses were therefore carried out on

155 participants (gender: 74% female; ethnicity: 53% Asian, 45% White/Caucasian;

Mage = 19.14, SDage = 1.85).

164

Procedure and Design

Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: compassion, pride, or neutral control. The same cover story that was used in

Studies 4a and 4b was provided. That is, participants were informed that they were participating in two different studies. The first was framed as a narrative study and the second as an individual differences study. During the supposed first study, participants engaged in the emotion induction before completing the manipulation check. During the purported second study, participants completed the motivation and EWB measures, as well as questions assessing demographic variables.

Manipulations and Measures

Emotion Inductions. Study 5a used an autobiographical recall induction method.

After bringing to mind a particular memory, participants wrote in detail about that memory for four minutes. In the compassion condition, participants were asked to recall a time when they felt compassion towards someone who was suffering. In the pride condition, participants were asked to recall a specific time or event when they felt proud of something they personally did. In the neutral control condition, the participants were asked to describe the layout of a frequently visited shopping centre. Full instructions for these conditions appear in

Appendix E.

Emotion manipulation check. Using the same emotion descriptors as were used in

Studies 4a and 4b, participants reported the degree to which items reflected their current feelings using 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Internal consistency was acceptable for all scales (compassion:  = .86; pride:  = .95, and generalised positivity:

 = .84).

Motivation. Motivation was assessed using two choice tasks. In the first, participants were given the option to sign up, using their email address, to receive articles from one of

165

two electronic magazines (Success Magazine, YES! Magazine) in light of a short description of the content of each. Note that these magazines are real and were selected with the aim that each would be equally (non) familiar. The description of Success Magazine read:

Success Magazine strives to bring you thought leaders and success experts, both past

and present, and reveals their key ideas and strategies to help you excel in every area

of your personal and professional life. You also will be provided a unique window

into the lives, practices and philosophies of today’s greatest achievers – top CEOs,

revolutionary entrepreneurs and other extraordinary leaders.

The description of YES! Magazine read:

YES! Magazine reframes the biggest problems of our time – climate change, financial

collapse, poverty, and war – in terms of their solutions. The magazine outlines a path

forward with in-depth analysis, tools for citizen engagement, and stories about real

people working for a better world.

Selection of Success Magazine was inferred as an indicator of agentically-motivated behaviour and selection of YES! Magazine as communally-motivated behaviour.

In the second choice task, participants were asked to select between two topics to write about: a self-affirming or other-affirming topic. This was adapted from a procedure developed by Horton, Reid, Barber, Miracle, and Green (2014). The self-affirming topic involved describing one interesting fact about themselves and to list their favourite hobby, food, movie, musician/band and a course that they had taken. The other-affirming topic involved describe one of their favourite things do with their friends and to also list the initials of five friends and one word that described each of them. Selection of the self-affirming topic was inferred as an indicator of agentically-motivated behaviour and selection of the other- affirming topic as communally-motivated behaviour.

166

Cohen’s kappa was calculated to determine if there was consistency among participants on their selection of the two motivation measures. In other words, if a participant selected the Success Magazine, were they likely to also select the self-affirming topic?

According to cut-offs provided by Altman (1991), there was poor agreement between the two choices (κ = .12, p = .12), indicating that it was not appropriate to combine the two choices to create a single index of motivation. Therefore, two motivation indexes were created (i.e., magazine and writing topic) by allocating a score of 1 to agentic selections and a score of 2 to communal selections. Selection rates by participants for the motivation options were 46% for the agentic magazine and 30% for the agentic writing topic.

Eudaimonic wellbeing. Self- and other-focused EWB was assessed using the same items as used in Studies 4a and 4b: the state-level variant of the 15-item version of Ryff's

(1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales (other-focused EWB:  = .65; self-focused EWB:

 = .67).

Analytic Strategy

Consistent with Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 4a, and 4b, structural equation modelling was carried out in Mplus. However, given that the motivation indices were categorical in nature, the robust weighted least squares estimation was used rather than maximum likelihood (

Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Theta parameterisation rather than the default delta was used as the categorical mediators were influenced by another endogenous variable (i.e., state emotion) as well as influencing an endogenous variable (i.e., other- and self-focused EWB;

Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Total effects were computed first, followed by the component pathways and indirect effects. As before, relative strength testing (Lau & Cheung, 2012;

Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was only carried out in model-specified cases, should they arise.

Note that, as with prior models, two variables were used to index motivation, but in this case

167

each represented a task choice (magazine vs. writing topic) rather than either communion or agency motivation. There was no missing data.

Results

Manipulation Check

Using the same procedure as deployed in Study 3, 4a, 4b, and 5a, a mixed ANOVA with state emotion as the within-subjects factor (three levels: compassion, pride, and generalised positivity) and emotion condition as the between-subjects factor (thee levels: compassion, pride, and neutral) was calculated. Mauchly’s test of sphericity revealed that the assumption of sphericity was violated for the main effect of emotion χ2(2) = 18.56, p < .001.

Therefore following recommendations from Girden (1992) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) degrees of freedom were corrected using the Huynh-Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε =.92).

Main effects of emotion condition, F(2, 152) = 22.61, p < .001, ηp² = .23, and state emotion,

F(1.84, 279.15) = 18.98, p < .001, ηp² = .11, were qualified by a significant interaction between these two factors, F(3.67, 279.15) = 156.20, p < .001, ηp² = .67. Means appear in

Figure 17.

As per Study 3, 4a and 4b, Tong's (2015) parsimonious and conservative approach was used to assess levels of the focal emotions. First, within each condition, the target emotion was compared to the next highest elicited emotion. State compassion was significantly higher than state pride in the compassion condition, Mdifference = 3.20, p < .001,

95% CI [2.75, 3.64].

168

1 Neutral Conditon Compassion Condition Pride Condition

State compassion State pride State positivity

Figure 17. Mean levels of self-reported state emotions across and within each emotion condition for Study 5a. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

169

Similarly, within the pride condition, state pride was significantly higher than state generalised positivity, Mdifference = 1.24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.92, 1.57].

Second, across conditions, levels of the target emotion were compared between the target eliciting condition and the next highest eliciting condition. State compassion was significantly higher in the compassion condition compared to the pride condition,

Mdifference = 2.63, p < .001, 95% CI [2.10, 3.15], and state pride was significantly higher in the pride condition compared to the neutral condition, Mdifference = 1.85, p < .001, 95% CI [1.32,

2.37].

Following the approach used for non-focal emotions in Studies 4a and 4b, levels of state positivity, as a non-focal emotion, reported in the neutral control condition were compared to levels in the focal conditions. State positivity was significantly higher in the pride condition compared to the neutral control condition, Mdifference = 0.75, p = .01, 95% CI

[0.32, 1.18], but significantly lower in the compassion condition compared to the neutral control condition, Mdifference = -1.75, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.18, -1.32].

Model Testing

Correlations and descriptive statistics for variables in Study 5a are presented in Table

11. Significant standardised estimates appear in Figure 18. Tolerance statistics for all possible regressions were above .10, thus assuaging concerns about multicollinearity (Kline, 2011).

Overall, as indicated by the ANOVAs reported above, the emotion inductions were successful, both within and across conditions. However, to be consistent with analyses undertaken in Studies 3, 4a, 4b, motivation and EWB subtypes were predicted from self- reported emotion rather than condition. According to the recommended cut-offs provided by

Hu and Bentler (1999) and Matsunaga (2010), model fit was acceptable, χ²(9) = 13.40, p = .14; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.98. The SRMR is not available with robust weighted least

170

squares estimation, however, the alternative weighted root mean square residual (WRMR =

0.50) also suggested that model fit was acceptable (Muthén, 2005; Yu, 2002).

Condition to self-reported emotion. As can be seen in the left side of Figure 18, compared to the neutral condition, levels of all three self-reported states were altered in both the compassion and pride conditions. Specifically, both the compassion and pride conditions led to higher compassion as compared to the neutral control condition, whereas the pride condition led to higher and the compassion condition lower levels of both positivity and pride.

171

Table 11

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all conditions combined; Study 5a)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Compassion 3.38 2.04 - 2. Pride 3.70 1.83 -.16 - 3. Positivity 2.99 1.52 -.31 .74 - 4. Motivation: Magazine NA NA .02 .02 .01 - 5. Motivation: Writing Topic NA NA -.01 .00 -.02 .13 - 6. Other-focused EWB 4.94 0.88 .01 .09 .10 -.01 -.16 - 7. Self-focused EWB 4.71 0.49 .09 .10 .08 .23 .08 .21 Note. All correlations greater than +/- .15 are significant at p < .05 and displayed in bold.

172

Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

State compassion .20 Compassion .85 condition -.29 .24 Motivation: Magazine .27 State pride Motivation: Writing -.31 .49 Pride -.56 condition .22

State positivity

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing Figure 18. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 5a). All listed estimates are significant at p < .05. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variances. Error variances for state emotion are as follows: compassion with pride, 0.28; compassion with positivity, 0.30, and pride with positivity, 0.62.

173

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. Contrary to expectations, none of the total effects from the focal emotions of state pride and state compassion were significant. Further, neither of the total effects stemming from state generalised positivity were significant.

Emotions to motivations. Contrary to predictions, neither state compassion nor state pride impacted either motivation index. Further, state generalised positivity did not impact motivation.

Motivations to EWB. In line with expectations, motivation as measured by magazine choice significantly predicted self-focused EWB. Note the negative standardised estimate in

Figure 18 from motivation to self-focused EWB. As described above, lower magazine motivation scores represent agentic choice. The magazine index of motivation did not predict other-focused EWB. The converse pattern was observed for the writing topic: with higher values (i.e., communal choice) predicting other-focused EWB, but no relationship with self- focused EWB.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Against expectations, none of the indirect effects from the focal emotions (or generalised positivity) to EWB subtypes via either motivation index were significant.

Gender effects. Following the approach deployed in Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 3, 4a, and 4b, the inclusion of gender as a predictor of motivation and EWB did not markedly change any of the pathways in the model. Despite gender differences emerging for self-focused EWB

(Mfemales = 4.66, SDfemales = 0.52, Mmales = 4.88, SDmales = 0.37, t(94.50 equal variances not assumed) = 2.85, p = .01, d = 0.49) and the magazine choice (Agentic choice%females = 41,

Agentic choice%males = 60, χ² (1) = 4.38, p = .04), inclusion of gender didn’t impact the model. In fact, the largest difference in the standardised estimates across the two models was

0.03.

174

Discussion

Study 5a examined the influence of state pride and compassion on EWB subtypes via communion and agency motivations. The novel contribution of Study 5a was use of a behavioural measure of motivation. Study 5a was also unique in its use of autobiographical recall to induce pride and compassion.

Evidence for the Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. Of all the pathways in the proposed model, only two were in line with expectations: agency motivation as indexed by magazine choice significantly boosted self-focused EWB and communion motivation as indexed by writing topic choice significantly boosted other-focused EWB.

Expected, not observed links. One possible explanation for the non-significant total and indirect effects, especially in light of significant effects observed in prior studies, stems from the use of autobiographical recall to induce pride and compassion. Although autobiographical recall has been successfully deployed to induce socially-oriented emotions in the past (Siedlecka et al., 2015; van der Schalk et al., 2012), it is not without its limitations.

Indeed, an examination of written content from the pride and compassion conditions showed a high degree of variability in the type of event described. This variability could have produced a variety of emotion states, and indeed other states, that each on their own or in combination could have impacted motivation and EWB in various ways. For example, in the pride condition, some participants recalled a time when they felt proud of someone else, as well as of themselves. Similarly, in the compassion condition, some participants recalled a time when they felt overwhelmed and guilty, as well as compassionate.

Another possibility is that the switch to measuring motivation behaviourally gave rise to the differential findings between this and prior studies. This topic will be taken up in light of the results of Study 5b, which also deployed the behavioural measures of motivation.

175

Conclusion

In summary, using behavioural rather than self-reported indices of motivation, Study

5a failed to observe downstream effects of state compassion and pride on motivation and

EWB subtypes. Despite the finding that participants who chose the agentic magazine reported elevated levels of self-focused EWB and participants who chose the communal writing topic reported boosted levels of other-focused EWB, other patterns predicted by the model did not emerge. One possible source of these null effects is the autobiographical recall emotion induction method used. Hence, Study 5b deployed a vignette induction approach.

STUDY 5B

Study 5b deployed a modified design to address potential methodological sources of the general lack of model support stemming from Study 5a. Specifically, the induction method was changed from autobiographical recall to a vignette approach. Vignette approaches provide more experimental control given that they are not subject to idiographic differences in content that arise from autobiographical methods. Support for the success of vignette approaches in the context of the current research stems from Studies 4a and 4b, which used a vignette approach to successfully induce targeted states to impact motivation and EWB. As shown in Figure 16, the hypotheses remain the same as in Study 5a. That is, pride was expected to primarily influence self-focused EWB due to its influence on agency motivation and compassion was expected to primarily impact other-focused EWB due to corresponding increases in communion motivation.

176

Communion motivation

Compassion Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Pride

Agency motivation

Figure 16 (repeated from Study 5a). Proposed model of the relationships between pride, compassion, and eudaimonic wellbeing (Study 5b). Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger effects. Method

Participants

One hundred and eighty-six participants were recruited via Amazon.com’s

Mechanical Turk and reimbursed monetarily for approximately 20 minutes of their time

(gender: 52% male; ethnicity: 80% White/Caucasian, 10% African-American; Mage = 34.31,

SDage = 10.25).

Procedure and Design

Both the procedure and design of Study 5b directly replicated that of 5a, apart from the emotion inductions. That is, participants were allocated randomly to the pride, compassion, or neutral control condition and were led to believe that they were participating in two different studies: one on narratives and the other on individual differences. During the supposed narrative study, participants engaged in the emotion induction and manipulation

177

check. During the purported individual differences study, participants completed the motivation and EWB measures, followed by demographic measures.

Manipulations and Measures

Emotion inductions. Just as with Studies 4a and 4b, a vignette induction method was used. However, modifications to the vignettes deployed in Studies 4a and 4b were required, given that the compassion vignette was written from the third-person perspective and pride from the first-person perspective. Vignettes used in Study 5b appear in Appendix F. To integrate a first-person perspective into the compassion vignette, participants were asked to imagine that they were sitting at home watching an episode of 60 Minutes that focused on homelessness. The vignette then described the struggles of a homeless individual (as per

Study 4a). To induce pride and with the goal of keeping the content as similar as possible, participants were asked to imagine themselves watching a 60 Minutes episode – Everyday

Americans Helping Those in Need – that showcased their own personal achievements of working with vulnerable individuals. To facilitate the pride induction, the participant’s name was inserted into the vignette. Finally, the neutral vignette involved participants imagining themselves watching a 60 Minutes episode that described the activities offered by their local community centre.

Emotion manipulation check. Using the same descriptors as deployed in Studies 4a,

4b, and 5a, participants reported the degree to which several emotion terms described their current feelings using 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely; state compassion:  = .86; state pride:  = .92, and state generalised positivity:  = .78).

Motivation and EWB. All measures of motivation and EWB were identical to those used in Study 5a (other-focused EWB:  = .70; self-focused EWB:  = .83). Just as with

Study 5a, Cohen’s kappa indicated poor agreement (Altman, 1991) between the two choices

(κ = .05, p = .42). As a result, two motivation indexes were created (i.e., magazine and

178

writing topic) by allocating a score of 1 to agentic selections and a score of 2 to communal selections. Selection rates by participants for the motivation options were as follows: 41% for the agentic magazine and 65% for the agentic writing topic.

Analytic Strategy

Consistent with Study 5a, structural equation modelling was carried out in Mplus using robust weighted least squares estimation with theta parameterisation (Muthén &

Muthén, 2015). Total effects, component pathways, and indirect effects were computed and, as required, difference scores were used to assess relative path strength (Lau & Cheung,

2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). One hundred and eight one participants had observations on all variables, with the remaining five participants missing data on one or two variables.

Pairwise deletion was employed on missing data (i.e., default option).

Results

Manipulation Check

Using the same procedure as used in Studies 3, 4a, 4b and 5a, a mixed ANOVA was calculated with state emotion as the within-subjects factor (three levels: compassion, pride, and generalised positivity) and emotion condition as the between-subjects factor (thee levels: compassion, pride, and neutral). Mauchly’s test of sphericity revealed that the assumption of sphericity was violated for the main effect of emotion χ2(2) = 34.96, p < .001. Degrees of freedom were therefore corrected using the Huynh-Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε =.87;

Girden, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Main effects of emotion condition, F(2, 183) =

38.04, p < .001, ηp² = .29, and state emotion, F(1.74, 317.62) = 83.47, p < .001, ηp² = .31, were qualified by a significant interaction between these two factors, F(3.47, 317.62) =

147.71, p < .001, ηp² = .62. Means are depicted in Figure 19.

Tong's (2015) parsimonious and conservative approach was deployed to examine the nature of this interaction. First, within each condition, the target emotion was compared to the

179

next highest elicited emotion. State compassion was significantly higher than state pride in the compassion condition, Mdifference = 3.92, p < .001, 95% CI [3.55, 4.30]. Similarly, within the pride condition, state pride was significantly higher than state compassion,

Mdifference = 0.68, p < .001, 95% CI [0.30, 1.05].

Second, across each emotion condition, levels of the target emotion were compared between the target eliciting condition and the next highest eliciting condition. State compassion was significantly higher in the compassion condition compared to the pride condition, Mdifference = 1.15, p < .001, 95% CI [0.66, 1.65]. State pride was significantly higher in the pride condition compared to the neutral control condition, Mdifference = 1.83, p < .001,

95% CI [1.30, 2.36].

180

1 Neutral Conditon Compassion Condition Pride Condition

State compassion State pride State positivity

Figure 19. Focal emotion manipulation check results across and within each emotion condition for Study 5b. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.

181

Following the approach used for non-focal emotions in Studies 4a, 4b, and 5a, levels of state generalised positivity, as a non-focal emotion, reported in the neutral control condition were compared to levels in the focal conditions. Replicating Study 5a, state generalised positivity was significantly higher in the pride condition compared to the neutral control condition, Mdifference = 0.63, p < .005, 95% CI [0.20, 1.07], but significantly lower in the compassion condition compared to the neutral control condition, Mdifference = -1.76, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.20, -1.33].

Model Testing

Correlations and descriptive statistics for variables in Study 5b can be seen in Table

12. Significant standardised estimates appear in Figure 20. Tolerance statistics for all possible regression pathways were above .10, assuaging concerns regarding multicollinearity (Kline,

2011).

As in Study 5a, the emotion inductions were successful, both within and across conditions. However, to be consistent with Study 3, 4a, 4b, and 5a, motivation and EWB were modelled from state emotion rather than condition. Thus, the fit of the model in Figure

20 was assessed given that it was not fully saturated. Model fit was excellent (χ²(9) = 6.37, p = .70; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 1.00; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Matsunaga, 2010; WRMR = 0.32;

Muthén, 2005; Yu, 2002).

182

Table 12

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Amongst Measured Constructs (all conditions combined; Study 5b)

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Compassion 4.26 1.88 - 2. Pride 3.42 2.05 .09 - 3. Positivity 2.96 1.58 -.09 .82 - 4. Motivation: Magazine NA NA -.02 -.07 -.06 - 5. Motivation: Writing Topic NA NA -.01 .05 .03 .06 - 6. Other-focused EWB 4.67 1.08 .09 .09 .14 -.01 .15 - 7. Self-focused EWB 4.54 0.78 .09 .14 .13 -.06 .01 .74 Note. All correlations greater than .14 are significant at p < .05 and displayed in bold.

183

Other-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

State compassion .19 Compassion .77 condition -.37 .48 Motivation: Magazine .64

State pride Motivation: Writing .43 Pride -.54 condition .18 State positivity

Self-focused eudaimonic wellbeing

Figure 20. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths (Study 5b). All listed estimates are significant at p < .05. Dashed lines depict non-significant paths. Circles represent error variances. Error variances for self-reported emotion are as follows: compassion with pride, 0.46; compassion with positivity, 0.31, and pride with positivity, 0.73.

184

Condition to state emotion. As can be seen in Figure 20, in comparison to the neutral condition, both the pride and compassion conditions significantly altered all self- reported emotion states. Specifically, state compassion was positively predicted from the both the compassion and pride condition, whereas state pride and generalised positivity was positively predicted from the pride condition and negatively predicted from the compassion condition.

Emotions to EWB: Total effects. Contrary to expectations and replicating Study 5a, none of the total effects from the focal emotions of state pride and state compassion were significant. Further, neither of the total effects stemming from state generalised positivity were significant.

Emotions to motivations. In contrast to predictions and replicating Study 5a, neither state compassion nor state pride impacted either of the motivation indexes. Generalised positivity did not significantly impact motivation either.

Motivations to EWB. Against expectations, neither the magazine motivation index nor the writing topic index impacted self-focused EWB. However, the writing topic predicted other-focused EWB, consistent with Study 5a.

Emotions to EWB: Indirect effects. Against expectations and replicating Study 5a, no indirect effects from state emotion (or generalised positivity) to EWB subtypes were significant.

Gender effects. Following the pattern observed in Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 3, 4a, 4b, and 5a the inclusion of gender as a predictor of motivations and EWB subtypes did not substantially alter any of the pathways in the model across the two models (largest difference was 0.06). In this study, gender differences emerged for magazine choice only (% femalesagentic choice = 28,

% malesagentic choice = 52, χ² (1) = 10.99, p = .001).

185

Discussion

Study 5b examined the influence of the positive emotions compassion and pride on

EWB via behavioural indices of communion and agency motivations. Study 5b used a vignette emotion induction approach.

Evidence for the Proposed Model

Expected, observed links. The only expected effect that was significant in Study 5b was that writing topic positively predicted other-focused EWB. This effect replicated findings from Study 5a.

Expected, not observed links. Against expectations and replicating the findings of

Study 5a, no total effects stemming from state pride or state compassion on EWB were significant. Likewise, none of the total effects stemming from state generalised positivity were significant. Furthermore, and again replicating Study 5a, no indirect effects were significant. I will first discuss the null indirect effects before turning to a discussion of the null total effects.

Firstly, given that Studies 3, 4a, and 4b did establish evidence for indirect effects from the state-induced emotions to EWB subtypes via motivation and that Studies 4a and 4b deployed a vignette induction as in this study, it is likely that the source of the null effects of emotion on motivation lies in the behavioural measure of motivation used in Studies 5a and

5b. In light of obtained data within the choice tasks, it is clear that there may have been several reasons why the behavioural measure was less than ideal.

Focusing on the writing topic, participants’ responses showed a high degree of variability. For example, when asked to list adjectives to describe their friends in the other- affirming task, some provided positive adjectives (e.g., “funny”, “sweet”, and “smart), whereas others chose negative adjectives (e.g., “unsure”, “annoying”, “arrogant”, and

“whinging”). Similar variability, and positive and negatively valanced responses, were also

186

observed in the agentic writing topic. Although some participants used this as an opportunity to focus on positive facts that related to their achievements and competency (i.e., agency motivation), others described negative facts (e.g., “I feel down a lot”). This apparent variation in valence could have on its own, or in combination with induced emotion states, impacted motivation and EWB in unanticipated and unintended ways.

Turning to the magazine choice, recall that participants were given the option of entering their email address to receive articles from either Success Magazine or YES!

Magazine. Although the majority of participants did in fact enter an email address, a subjective review across both studies revealed some potentially invalid email addresses (e.g., [email protected] and [email protected]). Furthermore, a review of comments solicited at the end of the study revealed that some participants found the request for an email address activity intrusive (e.g., “I don’t think studies should ask for emails like that” and “take the email part out the survey”). Thus, participants’ negative reactions to or cursory engagement with this task could have impacted EWB subtypes in various ways.

Another indicator of the problematic nature of the behavioural measures stems from the results of the reliability analysis, which revealed inconsistency across the magazine and writing topic choices. Participants who, for instance, chose the option deemed to be agentic in one task were not as likely as expected to choose the agentic choice in the other task. This casts doubt on whether the behaviour measures as designed accurately accessed communion and agency motivations.

Another possibility for the absent link between emotion and motivation, is that pride and compassion promote agentic and communal attitudes and intentions but not behaviours.

Indeed, across state studies 3, 4a, 4b where pride and compassion impacted motivation, motivation has been measured via attitudes (e.g., “I enjoy difficult work” and “People

187

consider me to be quite friendly”) and intentions (e.g., “My goal is to do at least a little bit more than anyone else has done” and “I would go out of my way to meet people”) using self- report questionnaires. Additionally, there is a body of literature that highlights the differences between attitudes/intentions on one hand and behaviours on the other (e.g., Theory of

Planned Behaviour: Ajzen, 1991; see Armitage & Conner, 2001 for a meta-analytic review; implementation intentions versus action initiation (behaviour): see Gollwitzer, 1999 for an overview). However, past research has indeed shown that agentic behaviours stem from state pride (goal perseverance: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009) and communal behaviours from state compassion (helping behaviours: Condon & DeSteno, 2011). Given this existing empirical evidence, pride and compassion are likely to impact agency and communal behaviour when valid measures of behaviour are used.

These non-significant indirect effects of course contributed to the negligible total effects of emotions on EWB in Study 5a and 5b. Indeed, across other state-level studies (3,

4a, and 4b), the focal emotions typically only impacted EWB via motivation (that is, in the case of a total effect, corresponding indirect effect(s) were significant).

Emotion Inductions

Across Studies 5a and 5b, and consistent with modelling from Study 4a, participants reported lowered pride and generalised positivity as a function of the compassion induction.

As discussed in Chapter 5, it is possible that these patterns were driven by negative states concurrently induced in the compassion condition (negative states and generalised positivity inverse relationship: van der Ploeg et al., 2016; Watson et al., 1988; negative states and pride inverse relationship: Mouratidis et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1988). Indeed, the homelessness vignetted deployed in Study 5b would have likely induced negative states (e.g., guilt, sadness, regret; Lagotte, 2014) and a subjective analysis of participants memories in Study 5a also revealed negative states (e.g., “I felt a great sense of sadness” and “I felt very hurt inside”).

188

Conclusion

To conclude, although Study 5b was effective in its induction of the target emotions via vignettes, these induced emotions did not impact behavioural motivation or EWB as expected per the proposed model.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

Several consistent indirect effects emerged in prior studies reported in this dissertation: pride’s impact on self-focused EWB via agency motivation (Studies 1a, 2b, and

3) and compassion’s impact on other-focused EWB via communion motivation (Studies 1a,

1b, 2b, and 4a). The aim of the two studies reported in Chapter 6 was to replicate these effects using behavioural indices rather than self-report measures of communion and agency motivations. While autobiographical recall (Study 5a) and vignettes (Study 5b) were successful in inducing pride and compassion, no effects on motivation or EWB were observed as a function of induced state. These null effects are attributed to the specific behavioural measurement of communion and agency motivations used in Studies 5a and 5b.

189

Chapter 7. Gratitude, Compassion and Pride: Synthesis of Results

Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 4a, and 4b revealed partial support for the proposed model. In this chapter, I report the results of a meta-analysis of the total effects and indirect effects of the focal emotions (gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration) as well as generalised positivity on EWB subtypes. In the context of the present work, meta-analysis provides pooled estimates of relevant effects across different studies, enabling generalisation of the observed patterns across different paradigms (e.g., induction techniques), measures

(e.g., Personality Research Form [PRF] versus the Needs Assessment

Questionnaire/Compassionate Love Scale) and samples (e.g., online community vs. undergraduate samples) (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein,

2009). Given concerns about the validity of the behavioural measure of motivation deployed in Studies 5a and 5b as detailed in Chapter 6, and the fact that only two of the focal emotions were assessed in those studies, Studies 5a and 5b were excluded from this analysis. Table 13 provides an overview of study designs across the studies that assessed the proposed model

(barring Studies 5a and 5b).

190

Table 13

Study Design across Studies that Assessed the Proposed Model

Study Sample Type State vs Trait Emotion Motivation Wellbeing Manipulation/Measurement Measurement Measurement 1a Community/Online Trait Measured emotions PRF PWBS: 45-item version 1b Community/Lab Trait Measured emotions PRF PWBS: 45-item version 2b Community/Online Trait Measured emotions NAQ and CLS PWBS: 45-item version

3 Undergraduate/Lab State Interpersonal induction PRF PWBS: 45-item version 4a Undergraduate/Lab State Vignette induction NAQ and CLS PWBS: 15-item version 4b Undergraduate/Lab State Vignette induction NAQ and CLS PWBS: 15-item version Note. PRF = Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984), NAQ = Needs Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al., 1999), CLS = Compassionate Love Scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005) and PWBS = Psychological Wellbeing Scales (Ryff, 1989).

191

Within this meta-analytic framework, I sought to test whether the constituent pathways (e.g., emotion  motivation; motivation  EWB) and corresponding total and indirect effects were homogenous across all six studies. In the face of heterogeneity, I tested whether assessment of emotion at the trait or state level could account for that heterogeneity.

This two-stage approach was designed to produce robust estimates of the underlying patterns linking emotions to EWB via motivations, as per the proposed model. I additionally tested another premise of the proposed model: relative strengths of effects.

To achieve these aims, a multiple group analytic approach was employed in which each study represented a group. This approach was selected over the traditional meta-analytic approach (i.e., using effect sizes as input) given that I had access to the raw individual-level data. Working from raw data in multiple group analysis provides advantages in terms of robustness and accuracy of estimates over working from summary statistics.

METHOD

Estimates for gratitude, compassion, and pride (i.e., the original model) and generalised positivity were integrated across Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 4a, and 4b, whereas estimates for moral elevation and admiration (i.e., the extended model) were synthesised across Studies 2b, 4a, and 4b. The multiple group analysis deployed to achieve pooled estimates of the total and indirect effects, as well as tests of the relative strengths of these effects, requires unstandardised estimates as input (Lau & Cheung, 2012; B. O. Muthén,

2007; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As such, model components (e.g., emotion, motivation, and

EWB subtypes) must be on the same scale range. Scale conversion was required for the motivation measures, given that different scales were used across Studies 1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 4a and 4b. Specifically, the PRF (Jackson, 1984) used in Studies 1a, 1b, and 3 utilises a 2-point true/false response format. The Needs Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al., 1999) and

192

the Compassionate Love Scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005) used in Studies 2b, 4a and 4b each utilise a 6-point Likert scale. In order to meet the requirements of the multiple group analysis, the latter two measures were rescaled to a 2-point scale to bring scale range in line with that of the PRF (and index scales were created by averaging across the items). The other constructs in the model (i.e., emotion, EWB) were measured on consistent scales across studies, thus precluding rescaling.

Just as with individual dissertation studies, analyses were carried out in Mplus

(Muthén & Muthén, 2015) using maximum likelihood estimation (Hoyle, 2000; Kline, 2011).

When determining the value of the pooled estimate in multiple group analysis, maximum likelihood estimation derives parameter estimates that minimise the difference between the estimated and observed covariance matrix and the mean vector (e.g., mean of each variable) for each study/group (Bollen, 1989). With regard to missing data, and following the default option for maximum likelihood estimation of individual studies, pairwise deletion was used.

This process resulted in the same patterns of missing data being used in the multiple group analysis as was used across individual studies. However, for the multiple group analysis, in

Study 4b two participants were excluded as they had missing data on a predictor variable

(i.e., gratitude). Note that with multiple group analysis missing values on the predictor variables cannot be handled using maximum likelihood based techniques (see UCLA:

Statistical Consulting Group, 2016b for a detailed explanation). Therefore, the final sample size used in the multiple group analysis for Study 4b was 151. I will outline the steps of the multiple group analysis undertaken to achieve the meta-analytic pooled estimates, including description of the underlying logic of this approach depicted in Figure 21, before reporting the results of the analysis.

193

STEP 3: RELATIVE STEP 1: OVERALL MODEL STRENGTH ASSESSMENT RELATIONSHIPS

Derive pooled Compute Compute difference scores Are the regression total/indirect between effect sizes (where coefficients homogenous Y estimate of constituent effect based on applicable) across all studies? pathways pooled estimates estimate of N constituent pathways

Derive pooled STEP 2: TRAIT/STATE Compute Step 2b: Are the regression estimate of total/indirect MODERATION ANALYSIS coefficients homogenous constituent Y effect based on within the trait and State pathways for pooled estimates Step 2a: Are the regression Y Studies? Trait and State for Trait and State coefficients different Studies N Studies separately between state and trait? separately

N Pooled estimates cannot be computed

Pooled estimates cannot be computed

Figure 21. Flow chart of the three steps in the multiple group analysis.

194

Step 1: Overall Model Relationships

In the original conceptualisation of the proposed model (both original and extended), all the model component pathways, and associated total and indirect effects, were expected to hold across study-specific variations. Accordingly, Step 1 of the meta-analysis involved constraining the regression coefficients that compose the total or indirect effect under examination to be equal across studies. For example, to obtain a pooled estimate of the indirect effect of compassion on other-focused EWB via communion across the six studies, the compassion  communion motivation paths were constrained to be equal across studies and the communion motivation  other-focused EWB paths were constrained to be equal across studies.

A Wald test was used to test the assumption that the regression coefficients in a given analysis were homogeneous across studies, and hence were appropriate to constrain as equal

(Bollen, 1989; L. K. Muthén, 2007; UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group, 2016a). A non- significant Wald estimate (χ²; cutoff: > .05) suggests that the regression coefficients are homogenous and can be constrained to be equal for the purposes of achieving a pooled estimate (Bollen, 1989; L. K. Muthén, 2007; UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group, 2016a). As such, when a Wald test was non-significant, the resulting pooled estimates for the constituent paths (e.g., compassion  communion motivation and communion motivation  other- focused EWB) were subsequently used as input for estimation of an “all studies” total or indirect effect.

Step 2: Trait/State Moderation Analysis

If heterogeneity arose (i.e., the Step 1 Wald test was significant), I examined one potential source of that heterogeneity: trait versus state assessment of emotion. In essence, analysis at this step assessed whether state versus trait assessment moderated the nature of the effect in question. While it is true that many moderators may have been the source of

195

heterogeneity across studies (e.g., emotion induction method and/or sample type), the trait- state distinction is a promising avenue and one that is grounded in theoretical rationale.

Specifically, given the fleeting nature of state constructs, estimates obtained at the state level are more subject to contextual influence than are those obtained at the trait level (Hamaker,

Nesselroade, & Molenaar, 2007; Nezlek et al., 2016). Thus, estimates might vary substantially across the state-level studies compared to those from trait-level studies.

Step 2 involved two sub-steps, in which additional Wald tests were used to assess the likelihood that the trait/state distinction was a feasible moderator of the paths in the proposed model. In Step 2a, the regression coefficients that composed the total or indirect effect under investigation were constrained to be equal to one another in the trait-level studies and equal to one another in the state-level studies, but not equal across trait- and state-level studies, thus producing a Wald estimate. A significant Wald estimate at Step 2a was interpreted to support heterogeneity between the trait- and state-level studies, thus allowing progression to Step 2b.

Step 2b assessed homogeneity within the trait-level studies and homogeneity within the state- level studies separately. Non-significant Wald estimates at Step 2b were interpreted to support homogeneity within each of those groups. As such, when a Wald test was non- significant at Step 2b for the trait and/or state groups, the resulting pooled estimates for the constituent paths (e.g., compassion  communion motivation and communion motivation  other-focused EWB) were subsequently used as input for estimation of a “trait” and/or “state” total or indirect effect, respectively.

Step 3: Relative Strength Assessment

The aim of Step 3 was to test aspects of the model relating to relative strength of different paths. Tracking the approach deployed in each study, the relative strength analyses in Step 3 involved assessing whether the difference score between two effects was significantly different from zero (Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Some 196

relative strength analyses were emotion-focused, assessing differences between total effects stemming from one emotion to the two EWB subtypes. Specifically, predictions for pride

(i.e., that the total effect on self-focused EWB would be stronger than the total effect on other-focused EWB), compassion (i.e. other-focused EWB > self-focused EWB), gratitude

(i.e., other-focused EWB > self-focused EWB), moral elevation (other-focused EWB > self- focused EWB), and admiration (other-focused EWB = self-focused EWB) were assessed.

Other relative strength analyses were EWB-focused, assessing differences between total effects on a particular EWB subtype. Such EWB-focused comparisons thus involved two emotions which both had a total effect on a particular subtype of EWB as determined in Steps

1 or 2. Specifically, predictions for other-focused EWB (i.e., gratitude > pride, compassion > pride, and moral elevation > pride) and self-focused EWB (i.e., pride > gratitude, pride > compassion, pride > moral elevation, admiration > gratitude, admiration > compassion, and admiration > moral elevation) were assessed. Note that relative strength analyses were only carried out when both the pooled estimates in question could be calculated and respective confidence intervals did not include zero.

Additional Analyses

Additional analyses were carried out to resolve cases in which pooled estimates could not be computed at Steps 1 or 2. Such analyses were carried out only when the pooled estimate effects in question were a primary predicted pathway in the model. For example, within state-level studies, additional analyses were carried out on the total effect of pride on self-focused EWB but not pride on other-focused EWB. In these additional analyses, the aim was to identify which constituent path of a total or indirect effect may have been driving the variability in effect sizes across studies given that total effects and indirect effects were composed of multiple individual pathways, each of which could have been homogenous or heterogeneous. Using the indirect effect of compassion to other-focused EWB via 197

communion motivation as an example, rather than holding both the compassion  communion motivation and the communion motivation  other-focused EWB to be equal across studies for a single Wald Test assessing the heterogeneity of the entire indirect effect, two separate Wald tests were conducted, with the first assessing the heterogeneity of the compassion  communion motivation path and the second assessing the heterogeneity of the communion motivation  other-focused EWB path.

Analytic Approach Summary

The multiple group analytic approach consisted of three steps. In Step 1, pooled estimates of the total and indirect effects for all focal emotions across the six studies were calculated when possible. When this was not possible – as the effects were heterogeneous – a trait/state moderation analysis was conducted in Step 2. In Step 3, relative strengths of model pathways were assessed (i.e., emotion- or EWB-focused comparisons). Finally, in cases in which pooled estimates could not be computed at either Step 1 or Step 2 for primary predicted pathways, additional analyses explored which individual pathways may have given rise to the unresolved discrepancies in effect sizes across studies. All steps were carried out on total effects (i.e., emotion  EWB subtypes) and indirect effects (i.e., emotion  motivation  EWB subtypes) separately for each emotion: gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, admiration, and generalised positivity.

RESULTS

The results of the multiple group analysis will be summarised here. Discussion of findings will be taken up in Chapter 8 (General Discussion). Each focal emotion will be discussed in turn, focusing first on Step 1 for all total and indirect effects, before turning to

Step 2 for all total and indirect effects.

The results of Steps 1 and 2 of the multiple group analysis for each focal emotion

(gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration) as well as generalised 198

positivity are found in Tables 14-19. Tables 14-19 are oriented such that “NA” denotes a situation in which the Wald test indicated it was not warranted to constrain relevant pathways to be equal. Additionally, “—” signifies a situation in which Step 2 was not carried out because pooled estimates could be computed across all six studies in Step 1. Consistent with reporting across my individual studies and recommendations (Lau & Cheung, 2012; B. O.

Muthén, 2007; Preacher & Hayes, 2008), all reported estimates reflect unstandardised coefficients.

199

Table 14

Multiple Group Results: Gratitude

Step 2 Step 1 Wald ES Model Effect Wald ES Trait v. State 2a Trait 2b State 2b Trait State Total Effects Other-focused χ²(25) = 81.15, NA χ²(5) = 28.48, χ²(10) = 17.29, χ²(10) = 34.38, b = 0.24, p < .001, NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .068 p < .001 CI [0.18, 0.30]

Self-focused χ²(25) = 110.90, NA χ²(5) = 51.02, χ²(10) = 23.70, χ²(10) = 33.62, NA NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .008 p < .001

Indirect Effects Other-focused χ²(10) = 29.97, NA χ²(2) = 1.50, NA NA NA NA EWB via p < .001 p = .472 Communion Other-focused χ²(10) = 26.80, NA χ²(2) = 6.58, χ²(4) = 10.17, χ²(4) = 10.03, NA NA EWB via p = .003 p = .037 p = .038 p = .040 Agency Self-focused χ²(10) = 29.25, NA χ²(2) = 0.29, NA NA NA NA EWB via p = .001 p = .864 Communion Self-focused χ²(10) = 31.11, NA χ²(2) = 11.18, χ²(4) = 5.69, χ²(4) = 13.97, b = -0.01, p =.146, NA EWB via p < .001 p = .004 p = .223 p = .007 CI [-0.02, 0.00] Agency Note. Significant, non-zero pooled estimates are bolded (p < .05). ES = Effect Size. CI = 95% Confidence interval.

200

Table 15

Multiple Group Results: Compassion

Step 2 Step 1 Wald ES Model Effect Wald ES Trait v. State 2a Trait 2b State 2b Trait State Total Effects Other-focused χ²(25) = 151.74, NA χ²(5) = 98.18, χ²(10) = 16.27, χ²(10) = 34.36, b = 0.16, p < .001, NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .092 p < .001 CI [0.11, 0.22]

Self-focused χ²(25) = 160.26, NA χ²(5) = 103.42, χ²(10) = 18.63, χ²(10) = 34.56, NA NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .045 p < .001

Indirect Effects Other-focused χ²(10) = 119.14, NA χ²(2) = 83.90, χ²(4) = 6.33, χ²(4) = 26.29, b = 0.20, p < .001, NA EWB via p < .001 p < .001 p = .175 p < .001 CI [0.16, 0.23] Communion Other-focused χ²(10) = 27.14, NA χ²(2) = 3.66, NA NA NA NA EWB via p = .003 p = .160 Agency Self-focused χ²(10) = 118.42, NA χ²(2) = 82.69, χ²(4) = 13.98, χ²(4) = 19.07, NA NA EWB via p < .001 p < .001 p = .007 p = .001 Communion Self-focused χ²(10) = 19.45, NA χ²(2) = 8.26, χ²(4) = 1.64, χ²(4) = 9.26, b = 0.01, p = .009, b = 0.02, p = .011, EWB via p = .035 p = .016 p = .802 p = .055 CI [0.00, 0.02] CI [0.01, 0.04] Agency Note. Significant, non-zero pooled estimates are bolded (p < .05). ES = Effect Size. CI = 95% Confidence interval.

201

Table 16

Multiple Group Results: Pride

Step 2 Step 1 Wald ES Model Effect Wald ES Trait v. State 2a Trait 2b State 2b Trait State Total Effects Other-focused χ²(25) = 125.22, NA χ²(5) = 74.59, χ²(10) = 17.68, χ²(10) = 31.47, b = 0.25, p < .001, NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .061 p < .001 CI [0.18, 0.33]

Self-focused χ²(25) = 137.22, NA χ²(5) = 81.37, χ²(10) = 23.47, χ²(10) = 30.43, NA NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .009 p < .001

Indirect Effects Other-focused χ²(10) = 26.41, NA χ²(2) = 1.50, NA NA NA NA EWB via p = .003 p = .472 Communion Other-focused χ²(10) = 66.97, NA χ²(2) = 50.19, χ²(4) = 12.47, χ²(4) = 3.84, NA b = 0.01, p =.114, EWB via p < .001 p < .001 p = .014 p = .429 CI [0.00,0.03] Agency Self-focused χ²(10) = 25.68, NA χ²(2) = 0.30, NA NA NA NA EWB via p = .004 p = .863 Communion Self-focused χ²(10) = 71.28, NA χ²(2) = 54.78, χ²(4) = 7.99, χ²(4) = 7.78, b = 0.06, p < .001, b = 0.04, p = .001, EWB via p < .001 p < .001 p = .092 p = .100 CI [0.04, 0.09] CI [0.02, 0.07] Agency Note. Significant, non-zero pooled estimates are bolded (p < .05). ES = Effect Size. CI = 95% Confidence interval.

202

Table 17

Multiple Group Results: Generalised Positivity

Step 2 Step 1 Wald ES Model Effect Wald ES Trait v. State 2a Trait 2b State 2b Trait State Total Effects Other-focused χ²(25) = 62.07, NA χ²(5) = 15.18, χ²(10) = 12.45, χ²(10) = 33.99, b = 0.12, p < .001, NA EWB p < .001 p = .010 p = .256 p < .001 CI [0.06, 0.19]

Self-focused χ²(25) = 108.78, NA χ²(5) = 50.00, χ²(10) = 21.81, χ²(10) = 33.82, NA NA EWB p < .001 p < .001 p = .016 p < .001

Indirect Effects Other-focused χ²(10) = 27.70, NA χ²(2) = 3.19, NA NA NA NA EWB via p = .002 p = .203 Communion Other-focused χ²(10) = 18.10, b = 0.00, p = .69, ------EWB via p = .053 CI [-0.01, 0.00] Agency Self-focused χ²(10) = 26.97, NA χ²(2) = 1.98, NA NA NA NA EWB via p = .003 p = .372 Communion Self-focused χ²(10) = 22.41, NA χ²(5) = 11.88, χ²(4) = 2.98, χ²(4) = 7.24, b = -0.01, p = .021, b = 0.00, p = .967, EWB via p = .013 p = .003 p = .561 p = .124 CI [-0.02, 0.00] CI [-0.02, 0.02] Agency Note. Significant, non-zero pooled estimates are bolded (p < .05). ES = Effect Size. CI = 95% Confidence interval.

203

Table 18

Multiple Group Results: Moral Elevation

Step 2 Step 1 Wald ES Model Effect Wald ES Trait v. State2a Trait 2b State 2b Trait State Total Effects Other-focused χ²(10) = 9.86, b = 0.00, p = .996, ------EWB p = .453 CI [-0.08, 0.12]

Self-focused χ²(10) = 6.86, b = 0.00, p = .937, ------EWB p = .739 CI [-0.06, 0.07]

Indirect Effects Other-focused χ²(4) = 5.69, b = 0.02, p = .219, ------EWB via p = .223 CI [-0.01, 0.04] Communion Other-focused χ²(4) = 3.55, b = -0.003, p = .436, ------EWB via p = .470 CI [-0.02, 0.00] Agency Self-focused χ²(4) = 4.34, b = -0.002, p = .447, ------EWB via p = .350 CI [-0.01, 0.00] Communion Self-focused χ²(4) = 1.29, b = -0.008, p = .354, ------EWB via p = .864 CI [-0.04, 0.00] Agency Note. Significant, non-zero pooled estimates are bolded (p < .05). ES = Effect Size. CI = 95% Confidence interval.

204

Table 19

Multiple Group Results: Admiration

Step 2 Step 1 Wald ES Model Effect Wald ES Trait v. State 2a Trait 2b State 2b Trait State Total Effects Other-focused χ²(10) = 12.17, b = -0.01, p = .805, ------EWB p = .274 CI [-0.08, 0.06]

Self-focused χ²(10) = 8.79, b = -0.06, p = .009, ------EWB p = .553 CI [-0.11, -0.02]

Indirect Effects Other-focused χ²(4) = 4.33, b = 0.03, p = .002, ------EWB via p = .363 CI [0.01, 0.05] Communion Other-focused χ²(4) = 7.22, b = 0.003, p = .396, ------EWB via p = .125 CI [0.00, 0.02] Agency Self-focused χ²(4) = 3.07, b = -0.004, p = .323, ------EWB via p = .546 CI [-0.01, 0.00] Communion Self-focused χ²(4) = 4.96, b = 0.01, p = .127, ------EWB via p = .292 CI [0.00, 0.02] Agency Note. Significant, non-zero pooled estimates are bolded (p < .05). ES = Effect Size. CI = 95% Confidence interval.

205

Original Proposed Model

Gratitude

The Wald test in Step 1 revealed that no effects could be pooled as the constituent pathways were heterogeneous across the six studies. Step 2 was therefore carried out to examine whether the trait/state distinction was the source of the heterogeneity amongst these effects.

Focusing first on the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB, the Wald test in

Step 2a revealed that the constituent pathways between the trait- and state-level studies were indeed heterogeneous. Proceeding to Step 2b, analyses revealed that the pathways were only homogenous within the trait-level studies. Subsequently, a pooled estimate was derived across the trait-level studies only. The resulting estimate was significant and positive.

Turning to the total effect of gratitude on self-focused EWB, the Wald Test in Step 2a showed that relevant pathways were heterogeneous between the trait- and state-level studies.

However, proceeding to the Wald tests in Step 2b revealed that the pathways were not homogenous within either the trait- or state-level studies. Pooled estimates were therefore not warranted, and effect sizes were not computed for either the trait- and state-level studies.

Step 2 procedures on the indirect effects resulted in non-significant Wald tests in Step

2a for two indirect effects: gratitude  communion motivation  other-focused EWB and gratitude  communion motivation  self-focused EWB, barring progression to Step 2b and thus precluding calculation of pooled estimates for these indirect paths. However, the

Wald tests in Step 2a for the remaining indirect effects (i.e., those with agency motivation as the mediator) suggested heterogeneity between the trait- and state-level studies. Step 2b on these effects revealed homogeneity of the constituent pathways within the trait-level studies for gratitude  agency motivation  self-focused EWB only. Pooled estimates were thus

206

only calculated for the latter indirect effect across the trait-level studies, but was non- significant.

Post-hoc analyses were carried out on primary predicted effects with the aim of determining which constituent path/s may have been driving the variability. Specifically, two post-hoc tests were conducted: firstly, to investigate the source of the heterogeneity within the state-level studies for the primary predicted effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB and, secondly, to investigate why the gratitude  communion motivation  other-focused

EWB could not be pooled at either Step 1 or Step 2. Regarding the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB within state-level studies, individual Wald tests revealed that two paths were heterogeneous: gratitude  agency motivation, χ²(2) = 7.23, p = .027, and communion motivation  other-focused EWB, χ²(2) = 18.11, p < .001. Second, regarding the indirect effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB via communion motivation, this pathway was heterogeneous across the six studies, yet the trait/state distinction was not the source of this heterogeneity (as evidenced by the non-significant Wald in Step 2a). Across the six studies,

Wald tests revealed that the path from communion motivation to other-focused EWB,

χ²(5) = 20.58, p = .001, was heterogeneous. As with the overall indirect effect, this particular pathway was homogenous across the trait- and state-level studies, χ²(1) = 1.50, p = .22, suggesting another factor driving the heterogeneity. Potential reasons for these post-hoc results will be discussed in Chapter 8.

In summary, there was only one effect stemming from gratitude for which a pooled estimate could both be calculated and was significant: the total effect of gratitude on other- focused EWB at the trait level of analysis. This effect was positive as predicted in the proposed model.

207

Compassion

In Step 1, the Wald test revealed that the constituent pathways for all total and indirect effects were heterogeneous across the six studies and therefore that pooled estimates were not warranted. Step 2 was therefore conducted for all effects.

Turning first to total effects, the Wald test in Step 2a revealed that the constituent pathways for both total effects were heterogeneous across the trait- and state-level studies, thus enabling Step 2b. However, Wald tests revealed that the paths were only homogenous within the trait-level studies for the total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB. The pooled estimate of this effect was significant and positive.

Turning to indirect effects, the Wald tests in Step 2a revealed that all effects apart from compassion to other-focused EWB via agency motivation were heterogeneous between the trait- and state-level studies. However, the Wald tests in Step 2b revealed that the effect sizes were only homogenous for compassion on other-focused EWB via communion motivation within the trait-level studies and compassion on self-focused EWB via agency motivation within both trait- and state- level studies. All three corresponding pooled estimates were significant and positive.

Two post-hoc sets of analyses were carried out to investigate the source of the heterogeneity within the state-level studies for the two primary predicted effects: total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB and the proposed mechanism (i.e., communion motivation) of this total effect. For both, Wald tests revealed that both compassion to communion motivation, χ²(2) = 8.18, p = .017, and communion to other-focused EWB,

χ²(2) = 18.11, p < .001, were heterogeneous within the state-level studies. Potential reasons for these post-hoc results will be discussed in Chapter 8.

In summary, there were four effects for which a pooled estimate both could be calculated and was significant: the total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB (trait- 208

level studies), the indirect effect of compassion on other-focused EWB via communion motivation (trait-level studies), and the indirect effect of compassion on self-focused EWB via agency motivation (trait- and state-level studies). The former two of these four align with the primary predictions of the proposed model, while the latter two reflect anticipated weaker cross-linked paths. Indeed, the latter two effect sizes were relatively smaller in magnitude.

Pride

Wald tests in Step 1 revealed heterogeneity across the constituent pathways for all total and indirect effects, thus precluding pooled estimates and requiring Step 2 analyses.

Examining the total effects first, the Wald test in Step 2a revealed that the constituent pathways were heterogeneous across the trait- and state-level studies for both other- and self- focused EWB. The subsequent Wald tests in Step 2b revealed that the paths were only homogenous within the trait-level studies for other-focused EWB. The pooled estimate of this effect was positive and significant.

Turning to the indirect effects, the Wald tests in Step 2a revealed heterogeneity between the trait- and state-level studies only for indirect effects involving agency motivation. Wald tests in Step 2b revealed that these indirect effects were homogenous within both the trait- and state-level studies for pride  agency motivation  self-focused EWB, and within the state-level studies for pride  agency motivation  other-focused EWB.

However, the resulting pooled estimates were only significant in the case of pride  agency motivation  self-focused EWB. As predicted by the model, these estimates were positive.

One post-hoc set of analyses was conducted on the primary predicted total effect of pride on self-focused EWB to determine the source of the heterogeneity as it was not warranted to pool estimates of the constituent pathways at either Step 1 or 2b. Across all six studies, Wald tests revealed that many pathways were heterogeneous across the six studies: 1) pride to agency motivation, χ²(5) = 54.77, p = .017, 2) pride to self-focused EWB, 209

χ²(5) = 29.32, p < .001, 3) communion to self-focused EWB, χ²(5) = 23.47, p < .001, and 4) agency to self-focused EWB, χ²(5) = 16.51, p = .006). However, within the trait-level studies,

Wald tests revealed only two heterogeneous paths: pride  agency motivation, χ²(2) = 6.76, p = .034 and communion  self-focused EWB, χ²(2) = 12.25, p = .002. Within the state-level studies, Wald tests revealed two heterogeneous paths: communion motivation  self-focused

EWB, χ²(2) = 10.89, p = .004 and agency motivation  self-focused EWB, χ²(2) = 6.75, p =

.034. Potential reasons for these post-hoc results will be discussed in Chapter 8.

To summarise, there were three effects for which a pooled estimate was warranted and also significant. The total effect of pride on other-focused EWB in the trait-level studies was significant and positive, as were the indirect effects of pride on self-focused EWB via agency motivation in the trait- and state-level studies. These indirect effects support the primary predictions of the proposed model.

Generalised Positivity

The Wald tests in Step 1 revealed that it was not warranted to estimate any total effects across the six studies. For the indirect effects, however, the Wald tests in Step 1 revealed that pathways were homogenous for one of the four indirect effects across the six studies: generalised positivity  agency motivation  other-focused EWB. However, the corresponding pooled indirect effect estimate was not significant.

Step 2 was undertaken for the total effects. Wald tests in Step 2a revealed heterogeneity between the trait and state studies for the constituent pathways to other- and self-focused EWB. However, Step 2b revealed that the constituent pathways were only homogenous within the trait-level studies for other-focused EWB. The pooled estimate of the total effect of generalised positivity on other-focused EWB for trait-level studies was positive and significant.

210

For the remaining three indirect effects not pooled at Step 1, the Wald test in Step 2a revealed that only generalised positivity  agency motivation  self-focused EWB was heterogeneous across the trait-and state-level studies. Step 2b revealed homogeneity within both the state- and trait-level studies. However, only the pooled estimate within trait-level studies was significant. This effect was negative.

To conclude, two pooled estimates stemming from generalised positivity were warranted and significant: the total effect of generalised positivity on other-focused EWB

(positive, trait-level studies) and the indirect effect on self-focused EWB via agency

(negative, trait-level studies).

Extended Proposed Model

Moral Elevation

Wald tests in Step 1 revealed that it was possible to estimate pooled effect sizes for all total and indirect effects. However, all resulting estimates were non-significant. Thus no proposed model pathways were supported for moral elevation.

Admiration

Similar to moral elevation, Wald tests in Step 1 revealed that it was appropriate to estimate pooled effect sizes for all total and indirect effects. All effects were not-significant apart from two cases: the total effect of admiration on self-focused EWB and the indirect effect of admiration on other-focused EWB via communion motivation. The former effect was negative and in the reverse direction as predicted by the proposed model whereas the latter effect was positive as predicted by the proposed model.

Step 3: Relative Strength Assessment

Step 3 was carried out to test aspects of the model relating to relative strength of different paths. Specifically, this was undertaken only in the following circumstances: when

211

there was more than one relevant effect for which there was a pooled estimate either for all studies, for the trait-level studies, or for the state-level studies.

With regard to emotion-focused comparisons, an examination of Tables 14-19 reveals that, in the trait-level studies, the total effects of gratitude, compassion, and pride on other- focused EWB were positive and significant. The model predicted that this path would be relatively stronger for gratitude and compassion than pride. However, the difference score procedure (Lau & Cheung, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) revealed no differences for all possible pairwise comparisons (gratitude versus pride: b = 0.03, p = .66, 95% CI [-0.09,

0.14]; gratitude versus compassion: b = 0.05, p = .36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.16], and pride versus compassion: b = 0.02, p = .78, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.13]). No relevant comparisons were warranted for the EWB-focused comparisons.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the current chapter sheds light on the generalisability of observed total and indirect effects from the proposed model across multiple studies that employed different paradigms and samples. The multiple group meta-analytic approach provided, where possible, pooled estimates either across all studies, or for the trait-level studies and/or the state-level studies. This summary will focus on the primary predicted paths of the original and extended proposed model.

Although no primary predicted effects for the original proposed model could be pooled across all six studies, partial support was found for the primary paths of the original model at the trait level of experience. Firstly, the total effects of gratitude and compassion on other-focused EWB emerged. Secondly, compassion’s effect on other-focused EWB was significantly explained via communion motivation and pride indirectly linked to self-focused

EWB via agency motivation. Pooled estimates, however, were not warranted across trait-

212

level studies for the primary predicted indirect effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB via communion motivation or the primary predicted total effect of pride on self-focused EWB.

Weaker support was found for the primary paths of the original model at the state level of experience. Although a significant indirect effect via agency motivation was found between pride and self-focused EWB, the primary predicted total and indirect effects stemming from gratitude and compassion showed substantial heterogeneity within the state- level studies, and consequently it was not warranted to calculate pooled estimates.

Support for the extended model was sparse, or even contrary. All effects stemming from moral elevation were non-significant. While the model-predicted positive indirect effect of admiration on other-focused EWB via communion motivation emerged, the total effect of admiration on self-focused EWB was in fact negative. A more thorough discussion of these meta-analysed total and indirect effects appears in Chapter 8.

213

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion

Past research has highlighted the role that positive emotions play in promoting eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB), yet to date has failed to differentiate between discrete positive emotions. As such, potential functional differences among positive emotions in their contribution to EWB may have been overlooked. The research presented in this dissertation expands understanding in this area by adopting a differentiated approach to the question of how positive emotions contribute to EWB. Across eight studies, I investigated the relative contribution of five discrete positive emotions (i.e., gratitude, compassion, pride, moral elevation, and admiration) on self-focused and other-focused EWB, as per the theoretical model depicted in Figure 4. Communion and agency motivations were assessed as mechanisms via which the five focal discrete positive emotions contribute to EWB.

Specifically, gratitude, compassion, and moral elevation were expected to primarily impact other-focused EWB due to their influence on communion motivation, whereas pride was predicted to primarily relate to self-focused EWB because of its influence on agency motivation. Admiration was expected to affect other- and self-focused EWB equivalently due to its influence on both communion and agency motivations, respectively.

214

Communion motivation

Gratitude

Other-focused Compassion eudaimonic wellbeing Pride

Self-focused Elevation eudaimonic wellbeing

Admiration

Agency motivation

Figure 4 (repeated from Study 2b). Original proposed model of the relationships between gratitude, compassion, pride and EWB, extended to include moral elevation and admiration. Bolder lines represent hypothetically stronger links.

The adequacy of the theoretical model to capture relationships amongst these constructs was tested across a series of studies. Studies 1a and 1b tested the original model

(i.e., gratitude, compassion, and pride) at the trait level of experience using a general community sample and participants who had recently experienced a stressful event, respectively (Chapter 2). To test the extended model (i.e., original model plus moral elevation and admiration) at the trait level, a moral elevation/admiration scale was developed in Study

2a, which was subsequently deployed on a general community sample in Study 2b (Chapter

3). Switching to the state level of analysis, Study 3 tested the original model in a university student sample using an interpersonal induction approach (Chapter 4). The extended model was tested at the state level in Studies 4a and 4b, using vignettes to induce the focal emotions

215

amongst university student participants (Chapter 5). Studies 5a and 5b adopted a behavioural measure of communion and agency motivations in a sample of university students in a focused test of pride and compassion (Chapter 6). A meta-analytic summary across Studies

1a, 1b, 2a, 3, 4a, and 4b was achieved via multiple group analysis that produced pooled estimates of pathways in the proposed model, where appropriate (Chapter 7).

The layout of the General Discussion in this final chapter is as follows. I will first review evidence for the original proposed model and then evidence for the extended proposed model. Evidence will be primarily drawn from the results of the meta-analytic multiple group analysis. Next, I will detail broader theoretical and practical implications of this research, before discussing the limitations and areas for future research.

EVIDENCE FOR THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED MODEL

Before discussing evidence for the original proposed model, it is worth noting four points. Firstly, the large data sets afford a confirmatory factor analysis of the theoretical distinction between self- and other-focused wellbeing. Recall that the dissertation studies used both a 45-item and a 15-item version of Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales as well as modifying the relevant versions for the state-level studies (Studies 3, 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b). The resulting sample sizes for these four types of measures were as follows: 15-item state version, 455; 15-item trait version, 0; 45-item state version, 352 and 45-item trait version, 753. The following two confirmatory factor analysis were therefore conducted: 15- item state and 45-item trait. For both analyses, model fit was acceptable, thus confirming the distinction made between self- and other-focused EWB. Details of these analyses are found in

Appendix G.

Secondly, the effect of each focal emotion on EWB subtypes and motivations represents unique variance explained after controlling for the other focal emotions and

216

generalised positivity. Indeed, across studies, correlations between any given pair of the five focal emotions were consistently significant and ranged from .26-.86 (barring compassion and pride in Studies 5a and 5b, in which the correlation was significantly negative and non- significant, respectively). Following the same logic, the inclusion of a general measure of positivity is an important aspect of the program of research, as all five focal emotions are related either theoretically or empirically with positivity (gratitude: McCullough et al., 2002; compassion: Engen & Singer, 2015; pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008; moral elevation:

Silvers & Haidt, 2008, and admiration: Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Therefore, the estimates reviewed below for each focal emotion account for their shared relationship with other focal emotions as well as generalised positivity.

Thirdly, in each study, gender was explored as a covariate and subsequently ruled out as possibly accounting for any of the observed pathways. This process was important given the documented gender differences on measured constructs (e.g., positive emotions:

Thompson et al., 2015; communion and agency motivations: Helgeson, 1994; Suh et al.,

2004; self- and other-focused EWB: Lindfors et al., 2006; Yoo et al., 2014).

Fourthly, conclusions regarding the viability of the proposed model below are drawn from pooled estimates from the meta-analytic multiple group analyses, rather than from subjective summaries across studies. Meta-analytic multiple group analyses enable generalisation of conclusions regarding the proposed effects across different paradigms, measures, and samples (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Borenstein et al., 2009).

Given the focus on theoretically-derived hypotheses regarding the primacy of particular pathways over others and in light of the desire for parsimony, the ensuing discussion will centre on such pathways. However, non-primary effects that could be pooled across studies and were significant will be addressed.

217

Gratitude

It was expected that gratitude would primarily be related to other-focused EWB and in turn that this relationship would be explained via communion motivation (i.e., a total effect and indirect effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB, respectively). Looking first at the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB, the meta-analytic multiple group analysis revealed that it was not appropriate to obtain a pooled estimate of this relationship across all six studies (1a, 1b, 2b, 3, 4a, and 4b). However, further analysis revealed that it was appropriate to pool an estimate for the trait-level studies. The resulting pooled estimate was positive and significant: gratitude promoted other-focused EWB at the trait level of assessment. This finding was in line with expectations and replicates past empirical work conducted at the trait level of analysis (Ruini & Vescovelli, 2013; Wood et al., 2009; see Algoe, 2012 and DeSteno et al., 2016 for a review).

Turning to the proposed mechanism of this total effect, it was not warranted to pool an estimate of the indirect effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB via communion motivation either across all six studies or for the state-level or trait-level studies separately. A post hoc analysis revealed that the link between communion motivation and other-focused

EWB was heterogeneous across the six studies, yet the trait/state distinction was not the source of this heterogeneity. Many other possibilities exist that could explain the heterogeneity between communion motivation and other-focused EWB.

One possibility is the measurement of communion motivation. Indeed, recall that in

Studies, 1a, 1b, and 3, communion motivation was assessed using the Personality Research

Form (PRF: Jackson, 1984), whereas in Studies 2b, 4a, and 4b it was assessed using the

Needs Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al., 1999) and the Compassionate Love Scale

(Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). The PRF assesses an individual’s propensity to nurture their friends

(e.g., “If a friend was in trouble, I would not be able to sleep because I would want to help so 218

much”), whereas the version of the Compassionate Love Scale used in Studies 2, 4a, and 4b was specifically designed to assess an individual’s motivation to nurture strangers (e.g., “I feel like being caring and tender to people, even strangers, who are in trouble”). In retrospect, these two scales may not be equivalent, as wanting to nurture strangers is qualitatively different than wanting to nurture friends. In turn, this qualitative difference in the assessment of communion motivation across the six studies may be a source of heterogeneity.

It is worth acknowledging the apparent discrepancy between the ability to pool the total effect of gratitude to other-focused EWB (which includes communion motivation  other-focused EWB) and the inability to pool the indirect effect of gratitude to other-focused

EWB via communion motivation, which I suggest may be due to the communion  other- focused EWB pathway. This is because the approach I deployed utilised omnibus Wald tests across constituent pathways of a particular effect (Muthén, 2013). That is, in Step 2a, I constrained all the regression coefficients that compose the total or indirect effect under examination to be equal to one another in the trait-level studies and equal to one another in the state-level studies, but not equal across trait- and state-level studies. Wald tests indicated whether this assumption of equality was appropriate. Only if the Wald test in question was non-significant, suggesting homogeneity across the trait and states studies, would follow-up tests on the individual constituent pathways be conducted (as was the case for gratitude  communion motivation  other-focused EWB). In light of this approach, it appears that the constituent pathway of communion motivation and other-focused EWB only prevented pooling for the indirect effect from gratitude, but not the total effect. It could be the case that, when considering the total effect, the other constituent pathways were sufficiently heterogeneous to outweigh the homogeneity of this particular path.

The significant, positive nature of the pooled total effect of gratitude on other-focused

EWB at the trait level of analysis coupled with the fact that the proposed mechanism of this 219

link was not significant in two out of the three trait-level studies raises the possibility that there are other, unmeasured mechanisms at play. Extant research points to a few possibilities.

One is the construal approach to happiness, which suggests that the experience of positive emotions (in this instance gratitude) causes individuals to interpret their lives (in this instance their relationships with others) in a more optimistic way (Lyubomirsky, 2001; Lyubomirsky

& Tucker, 1998; Wood et al., 2008, 2010). In this view, optimism may serve as the mechanism linking gratitude to other-focused EWB. Indeed, other research has identified that optimism contributes positively to other-focused EWB (e.g., Augusto-Landa et al., 2011;

Gallagher & Lopez, 2009).

Another possible mechanism is positive reappraisal, or the process of viewing negative events in a positive light (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Trait gratitude predicts positive reappraisal/reframing (Lambert et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2012), which in turn is positively related to a range of components of other-focused EWB (e.g., relatedness need satisfaction: Yeung, Lu, Wong, & Huynh, 2016; perceived social support: Kim, Han, Shaw,

McTavish, & Gustafson, 2010; marital satisfaction: Ptacek, Pierce, & Ptacek, 2007). These possible mechanisms are well-suited to be tested in future research.

The expected link between gratitude and communion motivation was grounded firmly in past research. However, that past work considered gratitude in isolation from other positive emotions, such as compassion (e.g., see Algoe, 2012 for a review; Bartlett et al., 2012;

Williams & Bartlett, 2015). Indeed, I did observe a significant raw correlation between gratitude and communion motivation across all three trait-level studies (1a, 1b, 2b), and gratitude and compassion were also significantly correlated. Once modeled simultaneously, only compassion carried the link to communion motivation in Studies 1a and 2b. Notably, in

Study 1b, the link between gratitude and communion motivation was only half the strength of that observed between compassion and communion motivation. 220

Discussion of the inability to derive a pooled estimate of the total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB at the state level of analysis is reserved for a broader (rather than emotion-specific) discussion (i.e., Revisiting the Model).

Compassion

Mirroring the expectations for gratitude, it was expected that compassion would primarily be related to other-focused EWB and that this relationship would be explained via communion motivation (i.e., a total and indirect effect of compassion on other-focused EWB, respectively). Examining the total effect first, and following the same patterning as gratitude, the meta-analytic multiple group analysis revealed that it was not warranted to derive a pooled estimate of the total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB across all studies.

However, for the trait-level studies, a pooled estimate could be derived and was positive and significant.

The primary predicted mechanism of the total effect of compassion to other-focused

EWB (e.g., communion motivation) was not warranted to be computed across all studies.

However, it was able to be computed for the trait-level studies and was positive and significant. Again, it is worth noting the apparent discrepancy arising here because the link between communion motivation and other-focused EWB prevented the pooling of the equivalent indirect effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB via communion motivation across trait- (and state) level studies (Step 2a in the meta-analytic multiple group analysis). It appears that the constituent pathway of communion motivation and other-focused EWB only prevented pooling for the indirect effect from gratitude, but not the indirect effect from compassion. It is possible that the other constituent pathway involved in the indirect effect from compassion (e.g., compassion  communion motivation) was sufficiently heterogeneous to outweigh the homogeneity of this particular path (e.g., communion motivation  other-focused EWB). 221

The support of these primary predicted pathways (i.e., both the total and indirect effect) provides partial support for the proposed model at the trait-level of analysis and aligns with past trait-level investigations of compassion (total effect: Liu & Wang, 2010; indirect effect: Lim & Desteno, 2016; see Batson & Shaw, 1991 for a review). Just as with gratitude, discussion of the inability to derive pooled estimates of these primary total and indirect effects at the state level of analysis is reserved for the broader (rather than emotion-specific) discussion (i.e., Revisiting the Model).

One non-primary indirect pathway stemming from compassion was supported by the meta-analytic multiple group analysis when pooled at the trait- and state-level of analysis separately: compassion  agency motivation  self-focused EWB. In both cases, the estimates were positive. However, it is noted that both of these were not only small in absolute magnitude (bs = 0.01-0.02), but also of substantially smaller magnitude (i.e., at least ten times smaller) in comparison to the primary predicted indirect pathway (compassion  communion motivation  other-focused EWB) observed at the trait level of analysis. Yet, the robust observation of these paths suggests that, to the degree that compassion prompts agency motivation, it promotes self-focused EWB. It may be the case that when individuals feel compassionate they experience a sense of agency motivation that is tied to successfully performing the relevant functional behaviour (e.g., prosocial helping; Bandura, 1977).

Pride

It was expected that pride would primarily relate to self-focused EWB and that this relationship would be explained by agency motivation (i.e., a total effect and indirect effect of pride on self-focused EWB, respectively). The meta-analytic multiple group analysis revealed that it was not appropriate to pool an estimate of this total effect across the six studies or across the state- or trait-level studies. A discussion of the inability to derive this pooled estimate within the state level of analysis will be discussed in the Revisiting the Model 222

section. I will discuss possible reasons for the inability to pool this primary predicted total effect within the trait-level studies below.

One possibility lays in an observed negative link between communion and self- focused EWB in Study 2b. Recall that the post-hoc analysis reported in Chapter 7 revealed that both the pride  agency motivation and communion  self-focused EWB pathways were driving the heterogeneity within the trait-level studies. A focused examination of these pathways across the trait-level studies revealed that the link between communion and self- focused EWB was negative in Study 2b (β = -0.08, p = .13), yet positive in Study 1a

(β = 0.15, p = .001) and 1b (β = 0.15, p = .01).

Furthermore, the negative coefficient in Study 2b stands contrary to the raw correlations observed in Study 2b and predictions made by the model, rendering suppression a possibility. Indeed, post hoc analyses revealed that when pride and agency motivation were removed from the model, the estimate between communion to self-focused EWB was weaker in nature (with suppressor variables: β = -0.08, p = .13; without suppressor variables: β = -

0.02, p = .78). The equality of coefficients t-test for nested models using the same sample

(Clogg et al., 1995) indicated that the difference in coefficents with and without pride and agency motivation in the model was significant, t(286) = -2.46, p = .02. Recall that suppression should only be interpreted substantively if the suppression effect is replicated in future studies, otherwise it may be considered a “statistical fluke” (see Paulhus et al., 2004 for an overview). This suppression pattern was not observed in any other disseration studies and as such is not interpreted substantively here.

The Wald test established that regression coefficients that composed the total of effect of pride on self-focused EWB were homogenous within the trait-level studies when this negative link from Study 2b was dropped, χ²(9) = 10.17, p = .34. Furthermore, the corresponding pooled total effect estimate was positive and significant, b = 0.30, p < .001, 223

95% CI [0.26, 0.36], in line with the proposed model. In summary, these post hoc tests indicate that if the link in Study 2b that was possibly negative due to a “statistical fluke”

(Paulhus et al., 2004) is removed from the analyses, expectations regarding the total effect of pride on self-focused EWB are met.

Pooled estimates of the indirect pathway from pride to self-focused EWB via agency motivation were positive and significant for studies at the trait- and state-levels of analysis

(computed separately). It is worth noting that pride was the only emotion from the original model for which a pooled estimate of the primary predicted indirect effect could be computed at the state level of analysis. Taken together, these indirect effects provide partial support for the proposed model and align with past research across both the trait and state level of analysis (indirect effect trait: Carver et al., 2010; indirect effect state: Williams & DeSteno,

2008, 2009).

One pooled non-primary effect emerged as significant in the meta-analytic multiple group analysis: the total effect of pride on other-focused EWB at the trait level of analysis.

This finding is not entirely surprising, given past research showing positive relationships between pride and constructs related to other-focused EWB (e.g., agreeableness: Tracy &

Robins, 2007; perceived social support: Tracy et al., 2009).

Generalised Positivity

Although generalised positivity was included across studies in order to account for positive valence in dissociating the effects of the focal emotions on motivation and EWB, the results of the meta-analytic multiple group analyses will be briefly discussed. With regard to total effects, it was not warranted to pool estimates across the six studies. However, this was warranted for trait-level studies for other-focused EWB; the resulting estimate was positive and significant. Recall that generalised positivity was operationalised as contentment in the trait-level studies. As such, this result aligns with past research and theory both regarding 224

components of other-focused EWB and contentment as a generalised positive state (e.g., first impressions of videotaped targets are more favourable for individuals in a good mood:

Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998) and as a discrete emotion (e.g., increased sense of feeling connected to others: Fredrickson, 1998).

Only one pooled estimate of indirect effects stemming from generalised positivity was significant: the effect of generalised positivity on self-focused EWB via agency motivation

(negative, trait-level studies). This finding aligns with past research suggesting that generalised positivity can undermine agency motivation (i.e., mood-as-input research:

(Martin et al., 1993; see Vlaeyen & Morley, 2004 for a review).

EVIDENCE FOR THE EXTENDED PROPOSED MODEL

Evidence for the extended proposed model was derived from a meta-analytic multiple groups analysis of Study 2b (trait-level) and Studies 4a and 4b (state-level). The extended proposed model included two additional emotions to the initial focal three: moral elevation and admiration.

Moral Elevation

Mirroring the expectations for both gratitude and compassion, it was expected that moral elevation would primarily be related to other-focused EWB and in turn that this relationship would be explained via communion motivation (i.e., a total and indirect effect of moral elevation on other-focused EWB, respectively). While it was possible to derive pooled estimates across the three studies, neither the total effect nor the indirect effect were significant.

One possibility is that the observed effects between moral elevation and both communion motivation and other-focused EWB in previous research were in fact driven by shared, but unmeasured, variance between moral elevation and compassion. In fact, past research supporting the link between moral elevation and both communion motivation and 225

other-focused EWB has studied moral elevation in isolation from compassion (communion motivation: Schnall & Roper, 2012; Silvers & Haidt, 2008; Thomson et al., 2014; Van de

Vyver & Abrams, 2015; other-focused EWB: Erickson & Abelson, 2012). Note that the anticipated total effect of compassion on other-focused EWB and the corresponding indirect effect via communion motivation were observed in the meta-analytic multiple group analysis for the trait-level studies.

This idea is partially supported by the individual results across the three studies.

Looking at raw correlations observed in Study 2b (trait-level), moral elevation was significantly and positively correlated with both communion motivation and other-focused

EWB. Further, in both Studies 4a and 4b (state-level), moral elevation was significantly and positively correlated with communion motivation. These correlation patterns align with past research and with constituent paths of the proposed model. However, when moral elevation was modelled simultaneously with the other focal emotions, the corresponding total and indirect effects failed to emerge across any of the three studies.

Admiration

Admiration was expected to impact other- and self-focused EWB equivalently due to its influence on both communion and agency motivations (i.e., total effects and indirect effects). The results of the meta-analytic multiple group analysis revealed that, while it was possible to derive pooled estimates across all studies, the total effect of admiration on other- focused EWB was not significant. The total effect of admiration on self-focused EWB was significant, but surprisingly negative. One significant indirect effect emerged, which was positive: admiration  communion motivation  other-focused EWB. Each of these will be discussed below.

The negative pooled estimate of the total effect of admiration on self-focused EWB was unexpected in light of prior research. A focused examination of the direct effects 226

observed in the individual studies sheds light on one potential source of this finding. The direct effect of admiration on self-focused EWB, which contributes to the total effect, was negative and significant in Study 4b, and negative and marginally significant in Study 4a, suggesting a dynamic whereby admiration without either agency or communion motivation may be deleterious. It is plausible that such admiration resembles envy, which indeed has been documented to have negative links to self-focused EWB (Appel et al., 2015; Smith et al., 1999).

The significant positive indirect effect of admiration on other-focused EWB via communion motivation was in line with model predictions and replicates past investigations

(Algoe & Haidt, 2009). Paired with the nonsignificant total effect of admiration on other- focused EWB, this finding suggests that admiration may only contribute to other-focused

EWB insofar as it boosts comunion motivation. Indeed, across all three studies, admiration never directly predicted other-focused EWB.

It is noteworthy that neither of the indirect effects involving agency motivation were significant, despite significant positive correlations between admiration and agency motivation across all three studies. This correlational pattern aligns with past research (Algoe

& Haidt, 2009; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997, 1999; van de Ven, 2015; cf. van de Ven et al.,

2011). However, once modelled simultaneously with the other focal emotions within each study, the predicted indirect effects of admiration involving agency motivation were non- significant. One possible explanation for this finding is that the observed effect of admiration on agency motivation in previous research was stemmed from shared, but unmeasured, variance between admiration and pride. Indeed, the meta-analytic multiple group analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of pride on self-focused EWB via agency motivation across both the trait-level (1a, 1b, 2b) and state-level studies (3, 4a, 4b). Note that this logic

227

mirrors the explanation detailed above for the lack of an indirect effect of moral elevation on other-focused EWB via communion motivation.

REVISITING THE MODEL

Broadly speaking, stronger support was established for the original proposed model

(i.e., gratitude, compassion, and pride) than for the extended proposed model (i.e., with the additional positive emotions moral elevation and admiration). The meta-analytic multiple group analysis revealed that the primary predicted total effects of gratitude and compassion on other-focused EWB were significant and positive within the trait-level studies (1a, 1b, 2b).

Furthermore, the primary predicted mechanism of the total effect for compassion was significant and positive across the trait-level studies (i.e., indirect effects: compassion  communion motivation  other-focused EWB). Pride also indirectly linked to self-focused

EWB via agency motivation. However, it was not warranted to compute pooled estimates of the primary predicted total effects for gratitude, compassion, and pride, or estimates of the indirect effects stemming from gratitude and compassion across the state-level studies (3, 4a,

4b).

This suggests that there are differences in the constituent pathways within the state- level studies. Below, I detail two potential reasons for this apparent heterogeneity: measurement discrepancies and contextual influences on state constructs.

Measurement Discrepancies

It could be the case that measurement choices across the state-level studies unintentionally gave rise to the observed heterogeneity. Specifically, although EWB was consistently assessed using Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales, the 45-item version was used in Study 3, whereas the brief 15-item version was utilised in Studies 4a and

4b. The positive relations with others subscale (3 items) from the brief version failed to meet conventional standards for internal reliability (Study 4a:  = .57; Study 4b:  = .66). 228

Although self-focused EWB as measured by the brief version showed acceptable internal reliability (Study 4a:  = .81; Study 4b:  = .75), this was likely due to the relatively larger number of individual items comprising the scale (12 items). It has been pointed out that the brief version achieves a shallower depth of construct measurement compared to the longer version (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Notably, in the trait-level studies, within which homogeneity of effects emerged, the 45-item version was used and demonstrated strong internal reliability, even for the positive relations with others subscale (s = .83-.89).

The results of the post-hoc investigations reported in Chapter 7 within the state-level studies confirm this possibility. Specifically, links involving EWB were identified as the plausible source of heterogeneity within the state-level studies. Specifically, for both gratitude and compassion, the link between communion motivation and other-focused EWB was driving the heterogeneity of both the primary predicted indirect and total effect. For the primary predicted total effect stemming from pride, communion motivation to self-focused

EWB and agency motivation to self-focused EWB were driving the heterogeneity.

I note that for both compassion and gratitude, two other model links that did not involve EWB were also heterogeneous within the state-level studies: gratitude to agency motivation and compassion to communion motivation. This raises the possibility that the measurement of motivation may have also been a source of the observed heterogeneity, especially given that motivation was also included in all heterogeneous pathways involving

EWB (i.e., communion motivation  other-focused EWB, communion motivation  self- focused EWB, agency motivation  self-focused EWB). Indeed, recall that in Study 3 motivation was assessed using the PRF (Jackson, 1984), whereas in Studies 4a and 4b it was assessed using the Needs Assessment Questionnaire (Heckert et al., 1999) and the

229

Compassionate Love Scale (for communion motivation: Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). Specific explanations for communion and agency motivation are given in turn below.

As detailed in the Gratitude specific section, the PRF assesses an individual’s motivation to nurture their friends (e.g., “If a friend was in trouble, I would not be able to sleep because I would want to help so much”), whereas the version of the Compassionate

Love Scale used in Study 4a and 4b was specifically designed to assess an individual’s motivation to nurture strangers (e.g., “I feel like being caring and tender to people, even strangers, who are in trouble”). Motivation towards nurturing strangers is qualitatively different than wanting to nurture friends. This difference in the assessment of communion motivation across the state-level studies may be a source of heterogeneity.

Extending this logic further, there is reason to attribute the observed heterogeneity to the alignment between the measurement of motivation and EWB. Several of the other- focused EWB items in Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales are anchored towards close others/friends rather than strangers (e.g., “If I had the opportunity right now to interact with someone close to me, it’s likely to be difficult and frustrating”) and hence align more closely to communion motivation as assessed by the PRF rather than the Compassionate

Love Scale. Indeed when the PRF was used in Study 3, communion motivation predicted other-focused EWB, but when the Compassionate Love Scale was used, communion motivation only predicted other-focused EWB in Study 4a and not Study 4b. Moreover, the link was weaker in Study 4a (β = .41) than in Study 3 (β = .61).

Two points are worth noting here before turning to a discussion of agency motivation.

First, not all items of the nurturing subscale of the PRF or other-focused EWB are specifically anchored to a friend/close other. While at first glance this may represent a substantial caveat to the logic above, the remaining items reference people (e.g., PRF: “I feel no great concern for the troubles of other people” and other-focused EWB: “Right now, I 230

think that people would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others”). When participants answer these questions, it is entirely plausible that they base their answers on people they know, rather than strangers.

Second, in the trait-level studies, within which homogeneity of effects emerged, the

PRF was used in Studies 1a and 1b, whereas the Compassionate Love Scale was used in

Study 2b. The link between communion motivation and other-focused EWB was significant across all trait-level studies. However, consistent with the patterning across the state-level studies, the link was weaker in Study 2b (β = .27) than Study 1a (β = .51) and Study 1b (β =

.41). Two explanations exist why this communion motivation measurement discrepancy did not cause heterogeneity for any of the primary predicted total or indirect effects within the trait-level studies: a) the majority of trait-level studies used the PRF (in comparison to the majority of state-level studies that used the Compassionate Love Scale) and/or b) participants in Study 2b were older than those in Study 4a and 4b (mean ages: Study 2b: 36.35, Study 4a:

19.35, Study 4b: 20.12). With regard to the latter explanation, the motivation to nurture strangers increases with age (e.g., donating money to charity: Freund & Blanchard-Fields,

2014), and thus for participants in Study 2b, the link to other-focused EWB may have aligned more with the motivation to nurture friends (as assessed in Study 1a and 1b) than for the younger participants in the state-level studies.

Turning now to the measurement of agency motivation, heterogeneity of the links between gratitude and agency motivation (and the subsequent primary total effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB) and between agency motivation and self-focused EWB (and the subsequent primary total effect of pride on self-focused EWB) could be driven by subtle differences in the assessment of dominance. The dominance subscale of the Needs

Assessment Questionnaire, as used in Studies 4a and 4b, assesses an individual’s general desire to take a general leadership role (e.g., “I would enjoy being in charge of a project” and 231

“I seek an active role in the leadership of the group). In contrast, the dominance subscale of the PRF, used in Study 3 includes items that assess the motivation to pursue particular career paths (e.g., “I would make a poor military leader” [reverse scored], “I would like to be a judge”, and “I would like to be an executive with power over others”). These qualitative differences in the assessment of dominance may have driven the observed heterogeneity for the total effect of both gratitude on other-focused EWB and pride on self-focused EWB within the state-level studies.

Again, it is noteworthy that the measurement of dominance was unlikely driving substantial heterogeneity within the trait-level studies despite the fact that agency motivation was not measured consistently. That is, in Studies 1a and 1b the PRF was used, but the Needs

Assessment Questionnaire was used in Study 2b. It is possible that the qualitative differences in the assessment of dominance were exacerbated in the state-level studies due to the younger age of the participants (all state-level studies used university samples, whereas trait-level studies used community samples). Indeed, a sense of uncertainty characterises the period between ages 18 and 25 (e.g., marriage, parenthood, and career preferences; Arnett, 2004) and thus it is likely that a degree of uncertainty would have been experienced for the university cohorts when answering true or false to the career choice PRF items.

Two points are worth acknowledging here before proceeding onto a discussion of the alternative explanation for the observed heterogeneity across the three state-level studies (i.e., contextual influences on state constructs). First, I acknowledge that gratitude  agency motivation prevented the pooling of the primary predicted total effect of gratitude on other- focused EWB within the state-level studies. While it is possible that the potentially suppressed link between gratitude and agency motivation in Study 3 contributed to the heterogeneity (akin to the situation detailed above for the total effect of pride on self-focused 232

EWB within the trait-level studies), it cannot be the whole explanation. A post-hoc Wald test, dropping the negative link between gratitude and agency motivation in Study 3, still indicated heterogeneity of the regression coefficients that composed the total of effect of gratitude on other-focused EWB within the state-level studies, , χ²(9) = 33.09, p < .001.

Second, I acknowledge that some links involving both motivation and EWB were in fact homogenous within the state-level studies. For example, post-hoc analyses of the primary paths involving compassion revealed that compassion  agency motivation and agency motivation  other-focused EWB were homogenous within the state-level studies. The post- hoc results reported in Chapter 7 only suggest that it is the specific relationship between the two constructs at hand (i.e., gratitude and agency motivation, compassion and communion motivation, communion and other-focused EWB, agency and self-focused EWB, and communion and self-focused EWB) that drove observed heterogeneity in state-level studies rather than a particular contrast per se. Notwithstanding this, there is the possibility that measurement discrepancies may not be the entire explanation for the observed heterogeneity within the state level studies. Below I detail another potential reason.

Contextual Influences on State Constructs

The potential for context to impact state constructs more than constructs assessed at the trait level may explain the observed heterogeneity across the three state-level studies. In other words, variations in the contexts created in the state-level studies may have impacted the observed links more than any such contextual differences may have impacted the links in the trait-level studies (Hamaker et al., 2007; Nezlek et al., 2016).

Meta analytic work has found that emotion inductions are more effective when participants are alone rather than in a group (Lench, Flores, & Bench, 2011). Further, participants are more likely to smile during a funny story if the storyteller was physically present (i.e., face-to-face rather than telephone/tape recorder communication channel; Jakobs, 233

Manstead, & Fischer, 1999). Turning to the research presented here, compassion induced in the presence of other people such as in the interpersonal inductions deployed in Study 3 may have a different downstream effect on communion motivation and other-focused EWB compared to compassion induced in solitude such as in reading a vignette in Studies 4a and

4b, thus driving the heterogeneity across the state-level studies.

Another contextual feature that could impact the heterogeneity of emotion outcomes is the resonance of the emotion inductions across the different state-level studies. It is likely participants may have identified more with a confederate who was experiencing cancer in their family (i.e., Study 3 interpersonal compassion induction) than with a homeless stranger

(i.e., Study 4a vignette induction). Indeed, compassion-related responses are augmented when an individual perceives the suffering individual to be similar to themselves (see Oveis,

Horberg, & Keltner, 2010 for an overview). Despite the link between the compassion induction and self-reported compassion being weaker in Study 3 than Study 4a, the interpersonal induction may have induced more sadness than the vignette induction. This apparent variation in valence across studies could have on its own, or in combination with induced emotion states, impacted motivation and EWB in unanticipated and unintended ways and thus driven the heterogeneity across the state-level studies.

I note that the indirect effect of pride to self-focused EWB via agency motivation was conductive to pooling at the state-level studies. This may be a function of the fact that all pride inductions involved individual achievements whereas the compassion and gratitude inductions had varying themes across the state studies and thus differential effects of motivation and EWB.

While these possibilities are tenable, future research is needed to confirm the potential sources of heterogeneity within the state-level studies. Specific suggestions are discussed below in the Limitations and Future Directions section. 234

IMPLICATIONS

Theoretical Implications

This section will address the following two main theoretical implications stemming from the research presented in this dissertation: 1) the adoption of a differentiated approach to the study of emotion and of wellbeing, and 2) the adequacy of singular emotion inductions to boost EWB.

The findings of the research presented in this dissertation support the utility of recent trends in affective science and positive psychology to adopt a differentiated approach to the examination of core constructs in their respective fields. With regard to the study of positive emotions, differentiation rather than amalgamation across emotions of the same valence has revealed a nuanced and more precise view of the effects of emotions (Campos et al., 2013;

(Griskevicius, Shiota, & Nowlis, 2010; Sauter, 2010; Shiota et al., 2014; Tong, 2015). In the current research, gratitude, compassion, pride, and admiration each had unique patterns of influence from one another on EWB and motivations, in line with their purported functions.

The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998) also posits that discrete emotions build differentiated types of resources (see Fredrickson, 2013 for a review). For example, interest builds intellectual resources, such as problem solving

(corresponding to environmental mastery: self-focused EWB), whereas love builds social resources, such as strong social relationships (other-focused EWB) (Fredrickson, 1998).

Although the current results only speak to the building aspect of the broaden-and-build theory, and if EWB is considered a resource, then results are in line with this theory.

However, the current studies are not a direct test of the building function of the broaden-and- build model and only focus on a few of the many positive emotions that could hold broadening-and-building functions.

235

In positive psychology, current trends also reflect differentiation amongst subtypes of wellbeing more generally (e.g., between hedonic and EWB; Joshanloo, 2015; see Ryan &

Deci, 2001 for a review), and EWB specifically (e.g., between other- and self-focused EWB;

Abbott et al., 2006; Burns & Machin, 2009, 2012; Gallagher et al., 2009); Kafka & Kozma,

2002). In line with these trends, the current results highlight the utility of studying EWB at a more granular level, as not all positive emotions contributed similarly to sub-types of EWB

(e.g., meta-analytic results showed that while compassion reliably predicted other-focused

EWB, it was not appropriate to pool effects on self-focused EWB due to a substantial degree of variability).

While still advocating a discrete approach to the study of emotion, the research presented in this dissertation highlights the need for integration within discrete emotion research. Indeed, functional theories of these emotions have often been developed for one emotion in isolation, and thus not considered shared core relational themes (e.g., elicitors, appraisals, and functions; Campos et al., 2013; Martinent & Ferrand, 2015; Lazarus, 2000;

Tong, 2015). Recall that in Studies 2b, 4a, and 4b, despite moral elevation having positive correlations with communion motivation, once modelled simultaneously with other positive emotions, primary predicted indirect effects involving communion motivation were only observed for compassion and admiration in the multiple group meta-analysis. Similarly, although admiration positively correlated with agency motivation across Studies 2b, 4a, and

4b, once modelling was conducted with the other positive emotions, primary predicted indirect effects involving agency motivation were only observed for pride in the multiple group meta-analysis.

It is likely that an aspect of the core relational theme of the other-focused emotions of compassion and moral elevation, such as the shared elicitor of a vulnerable individual

(compassion: Goetz et al., 2010; moral elevation: Algoe & Haidt, 2009), drives the link to 236

communion motivation and subsequently other-focused EWB. Specifically, moral elevation is typically experienced when an individual witnesses someone helping a vulnerable individual (Algoe & Haidt, 2009), whereas compassion is experienced by just witnessing the vulnerable individual (Goetz et al., 2010). It is possible that in situations that elicit moral elevation, the compassion felt towards the vulnerable individual is what drives communion motivation rather than the moral elevation elicited by the agent of help. In other words, witnessing someone assist a vulnerable individual may not be sufficient to prompt communal motivation over and above that stemming from compassion elicited by the vulnerable individual.

Applying a similar logic to the self-focused emotions of pride and admiration, the shared appraisal of individuals thinking about their own achievements boosts agency motivation and subsequently self-focused EWB. Indeed, according to social comparison research, witnessing the excellence of others, which is a typical admiration elicitor, can cause an individual to think about their own successes and other similarities shared with the skilled other (see Suls et al., 2002 for an overview). The results of the research presented in this dissertation suggest that the main driving force for boosting agency motivation is feeling proud of one’s own achievements rather than admiring the achievements of others. In summary, although the predicted motivational effects for admiration (e.g., agency motivation) and moral elevation (e.g., communion motivation) were not observed, the results of this dissertation importantly suggest that when modelled simultaneously not all discrete emotions will have unique effects on motivations and EWB due to shared elicitors or appraisals driving the effects. Indeed, past research has often studied positive emotions in isolation when examining downstream effects on motivation and EWB.

Finally, the current findings impact theoretical debate regarding whether wellbeing is subject to influence by inductions such as those targeting transient emotional states. Some 237

researchers have argued that one-off emotion inductions may not be sufficient to alter wellbeing (e.g., Ouweneel et al., 2014; Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Similarly, there have been suggestions that EWB may be too stable to be altered over short periods of time (Burns

& Ma, 2015). However, for the positive emotion where it was warranted to compute a pooled estimate across the state-level studies (i.e., pride), the results show that pride elicited via social acclaim (Study 3) or via recalling a prior personal success (Study 4a and 4b) is sufficient to boost self-focused EWB via agency motivation. This opens the door for consideration of how pride-based inductions might be deployed as interventions to increase self-focused EWB, as will be discussed below.

Practical Implications

The corpus of studies presented in this dissertation carry implications for societal efforts to promote wellbeing. One popular route to promoting wellbeing is via psychological interventions. Robust evidence supports the plausibility of promoting positive emotions collectively as a route to enhance wellbeing (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Fredrickson & Joiner,

2002). Aside from gratitude interventions (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh et al., 2009;

Seligman et al., 2005), few established wellbeing interventions target discrete positive emotions.

The findings reported in this dissertation suggest that compassion and pride may be suitable candidates for interventions designed to promote EWB. Moreover, my research suggests that such interventions could be deployed in a tailored fashion for increased efficacy. Specifically, pride-oriented interventions that facilitate agency motivation could be deployed to individuals experiencing a paucity of self-focused EWB, whereas compassion- oriented interventions could be useful in the face of deficits in other-focused EWB. However, given that support for the proposed model was stronger at the trait level of analysis, these interventions would need to facilitate engrained/trait levels of compassion and pride. 238

Although emotions can be manipulated at the state level relatively easily (e.g., using hypothetical vignettes as in Studies 4a, 4b, and 5b), altering emotions at the trait level is likely to be more difficult (Watkins, 2004). However, difficulty is not impossibility. Past research has demonstrated that trait levels of gratitude can be boosted via a 6-month interactive positive psychology program (Sundar, Qureshi, & Galiatsatos, 2016). Moreover, trait levels of happiness and empathy (a construct involved in the experience of compassion:

Goetz et al., 2010) have been shown to be effectively boosted via a range of positive psychology interventions (e.g., happiness: Lyubomirsky et al., 2011; see Boehm &

Lyubomirsky, 2012 for a review; empathy: Sundar et al., 2016). It therefore stands to reason that trait compassion- and pride-building activities could be developed.

Once effective interventions have been identified, educating individuals on the multiple routes to EWB is a second practical benefit stemming from the research presented in this dissertation. This education could take the form of a popular-press book following a similar structure to the The How of Happiness (Lyubomirsky, 2007), which equips individuals with tangible suggestions to increase happiness levels. However, a more discrete approach should be adopted, highlighting the multiple pathways to different types of EWB.

Rather than instructing individuals to foster positive emotions generally (e.g., Lyubomirsky,

2007), the book might provide tailored advice. For example, following a diagnostic tool to identify deficits in self- and/or other-focused EWB, readers could access a tool-kit of activities catered to their particular situation (e.g., loving-kindness meditation to boost compassion with the goal of increasing other-focused EWB; Lee et al., 2012). It is worth pointing out that the magnitude of the effect of pride on other-focused EWB was similar to that of gratitude and compassion and therefore activities that promote pride and agency motivation might be beneficial for most individuals (i.e., those experiencing deficits in either self- and/or other-focused EWB). 239

Driven by the fact that EWB is a deterrent of mental illness (Wood & Joseph, 2010; see Fava & Ruini, 2003 for an overview), these practical interventions and the associated elevation of EWB also carry societal implications. Indeed, the prevention of mental illness is a pertinent challenge to modern society as 45% of Australians have experienced a mental illness at some point, with similar statistics occurring around the world (Pedersen et al., 2014; see Steel et al., 2014 for a global meta-analysis). These prevalent experiences of mental illness are associated with lost wages, productivity, medical costs, and disability claims that have been estimated to cost the Australian Government $20 billion per year (ABS, 2009).

In addition to mental illness, EWB causes HWB (e.g., positive affect; Burns &

Machin, 2012) as well as a variety of physical outcomes (e.g., lower number of metabolic syndrome components; Boylan & Ryff, 2015; diminished aortic calcification; see Boehm &

Kubzansky, 2012 for a review) and health behaviours (e.g., reduced likelihood of smoking and excessive alcohol consumption; see Boehm & Kubzansky, 2012 for a review). The present findings suggest promising avenues to develop interventions that would boost gratitude, compassion, and pride in order to enhance EWB, thereby reducing the prevalence of mental illness, increasing levels of HWB and other positive outcomes such as physical health and adaptive health behaviours.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The research presented in this dissertation is not without methodological and theoretical limitations. These are addressed in turn below, including suggestions for future research that might redress those limitations.

Methodological Limitations and Future Directions

Six main limitations stemming from the methods used in the current research will be presented below: 1) reliance on cross-sectional designs, 2) reliance on self-report data, 3) omission of a life-span perspective, 4) the study of trait- and state-level constructs in separate 240

studies, 5) the inconsistent measurement of EWB and motivation across the state-level studies, and 6) statistical power.

The eight trait-level studies presented in this dissertation were cross-sectional in design, precluding strong evidence of causal directionality. Although I undertook analyses that demonstrated that the proposed model provided better fit than a reversed model whereby motivations predicted emotions, this alternative ordering represents only one possibility. For instance, pride may lead to higher levels of agency motivation and self-focused EWB, as observed in the research presented here. Elevated self-focused EWB may in turn give rise to situations in which pride can be experienced more frequently and in higher intensity. Indeed, such an ‘upward spiral’ view of positive emotion has been advocated (Fredrickson & Joiner,

2002; Garland et al., 2010). In order to address this possibility and/or provide further support for the orderings in the current model, future research should employ a three-wave longitudinal design, taking measures of all the constructs at each distinct point in time. Such a design would enable a panel model in which the hypothesized causal order can be examined and also compared to alternative orderings (see Aguinis, Edwards, & Bradley, 2016 for an overview; Schoemann, Boulton, & Short, 2017). For example, positive emotions measured at

Time 1 could be used to predict motivations measured at Time 2 (controlling for motivations measured at Time 1), which in turn could be used to predict EWB measures at Time 3 (after controlling for EWB measured at both Time 1 and Time 2; see Marsh & Yeung, 1997 for a similar design). This analysis would test the proposed model and could be assessed against models that drawn on different measures at each time point.

Moreover, the correlational designs give rise to concerns that confounds may be at play. Recall that both gratitude, compassion and pride each had a total effect on other-focused

EWB. The positive personality traits from the Big Five (i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness) are an obvious possibility given that all 241

three focal emotions correlate strongly with these personality traits (e.g., gratitude with all four positive personality traits, Wood, Joseph, & Maltby, 2009; compassion with extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, Shiota et al., 2006; and pride with extraversion and conscientiousness, Shiota et al., 2006). Further, these personality traits are correlated with other-focused EWB (Wood et al., 2009), raising the possibility that gratitude, compassion, and pride were only linked to other-focused EWB because of the third variable effect of the Big Five facets. To address this possibility, future research employing the three-wave longitudinal design discussed above should incorporate measurement and analysis of the Big Five facets.

Notably, not all studies relied on correlational designs. Across the three experimental studies (Study 3, 4a, and 4b), a consistent finding was that pride predicted self-focused EWB via agency motivation. Given that pride was induced, it is feasible to conclude that pride caused an increase in agency motivation (MacKinnon, Coxe, & Baraldi, 2012). However, it cannot be said with certainty that agency motivation caused the increase in self-focused

EWB. Future experimental research is therefore required that undertakes a set of studies that utlise the manipulated mediator approach/experimental-causal-chains approach (see

Figueredo et al., 2013, Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005, and Stone-Romero & Rosopa, 2011) for reviews). This approach would require two studies. The first study would manipulate pride and examine the effects on agency motivation, whereas the second would manipulate agency motivation and examine the effects on self-focused EWB. Such two-study approaches provide much stronger evidence of causality.

Ultimately, data that enable concurrent and time-lagged intra-individual analyses, at both the state and trait levels of emotion assessment are needed to confirm directionality and dynamic interrelationships captured in the model supported in the current research.

242

Relatedly, recall that in addition to the inconsistent measurement of motivation and

EWB, another possible explanation for the inability to pool the majority of the primary predicted effects (barring pride  agency motivation  self-focused EWB) across the state- level studies is the greater potential for contextual influence on state constructs than trait constructs. Experience sampling methods should be used to derive contextual details that may moderate the size or direction of the effect of a particular emotion on motivation or EWB across the state-level studies. Specifically, future research could take state measures of gratitude, compassion and pride, motivation, and EWB at different time-points whilst also asking participants to indicate their current context and associated states. Drawing on the example provided above, certain contexts (e.g., witnessing a fellow student experience distress tied to the diagnosis of cancer of a close family member versus a stranger being homeless) would be more likely to induce negative states (see Oveis et al., 2010 for an overview). It will then be possible to determine if certain contextual effects are moderators of the paths in the proposed model, and thus are the source of the state-level heterogeneity.

These experience sampling methods could also measure potential confounds (e.g., state generalised positivity) at the state-level as well.

The reliance on self-report is an admitted limitation of the current research, given that concerns about common-method variance can arise when a single channel of data is used throughout a program of research or within a single study (Podsakoff et al., 2012). In the two studies that endeavored to measure motivations behaviourally (Studies 5a and 5b), the proposed model was not supported, despite existing evidence that links between emotions and behaviours do indeed exist (e.g., compassion to communal behaviours: Condon &

DeSteno, 2011; pride to agentic behaviours: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). As detailed in Chapter 6, the null findings from Studies 5a and 5b may have arisen from the mixed valence of participant’s agentic and communal motivations. Indeed, it is clear that future 243

studies are needed that assess motivation using non-self-report methodologies. Such future studies could deploy paradigms used successfully in past research linking focal emotions to behaviours that align with communion and agency motivations (e.g., helping behaviour:

Condon & DeSteno, 2011; goal perserverance: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). While methodologically-intensive, such research would provide further rigorous tests of the model.

Whether non-self-report methods can be used to capture emotions and EWB is a topic of debate. Given that EWB is, by definition, a subjective experience (Keyes et al., 2002;

Ryff, 1995), it has been argued that it is most appropriately measured via self-report (Abele et al., 2016; Spector, 2011). Turning to emotion assessment, while psychophysiological measures can be deployed to assess some aspects of emotional experience (see Shiota et al.,

2014 for a review), evidence is sparse as to whether they can differentiate between the focal emotions in this research specifically (cf. for the case of pride compared to interest, joy, and surprise: Kreibig et al., 2010; cf. for compassion compared to pride and inspiration: Stellar et al., 2015). Indeed, to my knowledge, no research exists that compares the physiological profiles of moral elevation, admiration, or gratitude to other discrete positive emotions.

Moreover, the choice to assess the proposed model directly from subjective experience/self-reported emotion was made because there was substantial bleed-over within the state-level studies (e.g., gratitude was elicited in the compassion condition). Modelling solely from condition to motivations and EWB would have precluded conclusions about which emotions were driving any observed effects. One caveat of this approach, however warranted, is that it doesn’t capture nonconscious processes that may have arisen from the emotion manipulations.

A similar concern regarding whether self-report of motivations capture the construct well arises, especially given that when behavioural measurement of motivation was attempted in Studies 5a and 5b, it was unsuccessful. All other studies relied on self-reports of 244

motivation. Nonconscious components of motivation were unlikely to be captured by such self-report scales.

I would not assert that the emotions and motivations assessed in this research must be consciously experienced and be willingly reported in order to impact EWB. Indeed nonconscious aspects of emotional responding could drive the effects to motivation and

EWB. One avenue for assessment of nonconscious components of these constructs is to assess physiology or neural responses. However, as detailed above, evidence is weak as to whether physiological patterns differentiate amongst emotions specific to this dissertation

(see Shiota et al., 2014 for a review). Similar concerns arise for neurological activation

(Lindquist, Kober, & Barrett, 2015). I am not aware of physiological or neurological measures of motivation.

Another limitation of self-report scales, especially those used to assess emotion constructs, is that participants may not share intended interpretations of specific terms (e.g., grateful and thankful) (see Wierzbicka, 1999 for an overview). Wording is, of course, always a concern for construct validity of self-report scales. However, adequate internal reliabilities were observed for the emotion scales (s = .60-.95), suggesting common inferred meaning at least amongst the descriptors used. Further, concerns around construct validity are assuaged given that hypothesised outcomes emerged (i.e., predictive validity was observed).

Although the current research did not rely solely on undergraduate samples, the majority of participants in all studies were early-mid adults. The current research was therefore unable to provide a life-span perspective. Indeed, research suggests that the experience of both positive emotions (Beaudreau, Mackay, & Storandt, 2009; Carstensen,

Pasupathi, Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000; Orth et al., 2010) and EWB (Orth, Maes, & Schmitt,

2015; see Ramsey & Gentzler, 2015 for a review) changes with age. For example, with regard to other-focused EWB, the primary relationships for seventh graders are parents and 245

same-sex friends, whereas in late-adolescence romantic partners become important (Furman

& Buhrmester, 1992). Pride increases from adolescence to old age (Orth et al., 2010). Due to the changing nature of both positive emotion and EWB across age, it is critical to examine their associations in various age groups or ideally in a long-term longitudinal lifespan design to determine the consistency of the proposed model’s pathways.

The analysis of the impact of the focal emotions on EWB at both the trait and state level of analysis is a strength of the research presented in this dissertation. However, the two levels of analysis were studied in isolation from one another (i.e., trait-level: Study 1a, 1b, 2b; state-level: Study 3, 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b). Although explicit item wording and instructions were used to detangle trait- from state-level constructs (e.g., trait compassion: “I am a very compassionate person”; state compassion: “Right now, I feel compassionate”; trait EWB:

“The demands of everyday life often get me down”; state EWB: “Right now, the demands of everyday life are getting me down”), constructs measured at one level are likely interlinked with those constructs at the other level. For example, individuals high in trait gratitude have a lower threshold to experience state gratitude (Watkins et al., 2003). To provide further differentiation, future research should test the proposed model at one level of analysis while statistically controlling for the other level of analysis (see Spence, Brown, Keeping, & Lian,

2014 for an example research program).

Replication of the state-level studies for the focal emotions from the original model is required. As detailed above in Revisiting the Model, one likely reason for the substantial heterogeneity within the state-level studies for gratitude, compassion, and pride (and the subsequent inability to pool either total or indirect estimates) was the measurement of EWB using the 3-item EWB scales and/or the measurement of motivation. Using the emotion induction techniques already developed for the state-level studies (i.e., interpersonal inductions: Study 3; vignette inductions: Study 4a and 4b), these future studies could make 246

use of alternative measurement of EWB and motivation. Specifically, the full-length EWB scales should be used, as well as scales that are more consistent with the context at hand (e.g., the close others rather than the stranger version of the Compassionate Love Scale; Sprecher

& Fehr, 2005). Moreover, dominance should be assessed as a general proclivity to be a leader

(i.e., using the Needs Assessment Questionnaire: Heckert et al., 1999), rather than a desire to be a certain professional (e.g., military leader).

If the inconsistent measurement of EWB and motivation was the source of the heterogeneity across the state-level studies, these future studies should enable pooling of the primary predicted effects for both gratitude and compassion (i.e., total effect on other-focused

EWB and indirect effect on other-focused EWB via communion motivation), and pride (i.e., total effect on self-focused EWB). In turn, this will enable a more thorough understanding of the proposed model at both the trait- and state-level of analysis.

Relatedly, across the studies reported in this thesis, a variety of different measures were used to assess the same construct, providing an opportunity to reflect on the strengths and limitations of each. Emotions, motivations and EWB will be addressed in turn.

Given the evidence, I feel that the measures I chose for emotion assessment remain the ideal choice. Across the trait studies, the DPES (Shiota et al., 2006) was consistently used to measure compassion, pride and generalised positivity and the GQ6 (McCullough et al.,

2002) was used to measure gratitude. These measures draw strength from a rich history of their use in affective science. Within the state-level studies, I adopted a common approach in affective science, asking participants to indicate the degree to which they were experiencing a number of adjective descriptors. Given that similar terms were used across studies, emotion assessment was not the likely cause of the inconsistency observed across the state-level studies. Although bleed-over consistently occurred both within and across the emotion conditions, plausible explanations have been offered (e.g., witnessing a confederate’s distress 247

regarding a family member who has cancer [compassion condition] caused participants to appreciate their own circumstances, and hence feel gratitude). As a result, the bleed-over is likely due the elicitation procedures rather than the choice of descriptor terms per se. It is thus my opinion that future research should employ similar measures of trait- and state-level emotion should it pursue testing the proposed model at either level.

Turning to the assessment of motivation, variability in measures used across studies may have contributed to inconsistencies of findings. Indeed, debate exists regarding the measurement of agency and communion motivation. One critique is that the two constructs are so broad in nature that their specific meaning is ambiguous and context-specific (Gill,

Stoekard, Johnson, & Williams, 1987; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979). For example, striving for agency in an occupational context suggests being highly disciplined whereas striving at a younger age suggests being too impulsive (Gill et al., 1987). Notably, this context-specificity was acknowledged in the Measurement Discrepancies section (i.e., desire to nurture friends

([PRF] versus strangers [stranger version of the Compassionate Love Scale] and desire to take on general leadership roles [Needs Assessment Questionnaire] versus a dominant career path [PRF]). In future studies, therefore, agency and communion motivation should be assessed with scales that are more consistent with the context at hand (e.g., the close others rather than the stranger version of the Compassionate Love Scale). Alternatively, future research could focus on expressivity and instrumentality (Parsons & Bales, 1955), which are more narrowly defined constructs that fall under communion and agency motivation, respectively (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Gill et al., 1987).

Finally, both full length and brief format versions were used to assess EWB. The brief format version of Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales yielded low internal reliabilities for the positive relations with others subscale (3-items) (i.e., Studies 4a:  = .57,

Study 4b:  = .66). Moreover the brief version achieves a shallower depth of measurement 248

compared to the longer version (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). As such, while study constraints can require brief measures, it is not likely worth the trade-off for measurement validity and reliability. Future research should deploy the full length versions of EWB scales whenever possible.

Finally, a discussion of statistical power across the studies reported in this dissertation is warranted. Specifically, the following two points will be addressed in the following section: 1) what effect sizes could reasonably be expected based on prior research, and 2) a discussion of power based on the sample size and number of parameters that were being estimated.

Any discussion of statistical power is grounded in effect sizes. Given the novelty of the research questions addressed in this thesis, it is difficult to discern a precise estimate of expected effect sizes based on prior research. However, past research that has examined the links between positive emotion and motivation (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Erickson

& Abelson, 2012; Thomson, Nakamura, Siegel, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; van de Ven,

2015; Williams & DeSteno, 2008) and positive emotion and wellbeing (Canevello &

Crocker, 2011; Carver et al., 2010; Erickson & Abelson, 2012; Liu & Wang, 2010; Macaskill

& Denovan, 2014; McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002; Orth, Robins, & Soto, 2010;

Schindler, Paech, & Löwenbrück, 2015; Tracy, Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski, 2009; Tracy

& Robins, 2007; Williams & DeSteno, 2008) has revealed standardised effects ranging from rs = .17-83. It is relevant to note that in the studies reported in this dissertation, effect sizes ranged from rs = .00-81. While the lower range of the observed effect sizes is lower than that of published research, this can be explained by publication bias in the field of psychology

(i.e., the historical difficulty of publishing null findings: Ferguson & Brannick, 2012;

Kühberger, Fritz, & Scherndl, 2014).

249

Another consideration with regard to statistical power is sample size. With the structural equation modelling analytic approach deployed across studies, relevant guidelines are provided by Bentler and Chou (1988) and Bollen (1989): 5 to 10 observations (i.e., participants) per parameter. For the trait-level studies assessing the original proposed model

(gratitude, compassion, and pride; Studies 1a and 1b), 30 parameters were estimated

(intercepts, residual variances, regression pathways, and correlated errors). Both Studies 1a and 1b, exceeded the lower range of these guidelines (Ns = 276 and 181, respectively). In the test of the extended model in Study 2b, 40 parameters were estimated. The sample size (N =

296) was once again sufficient.

Turning to the state-level studies, more parameters were estimated given the additional layer of predicted self-reported emotion from emotion condition. The number of parameters and sample size, respectively, for each state-level studies are as follows: Study 3,

60, 166; Study 4a, 77, 147; Study 4b, 77, 153; Study 5a, 38, 155; Study 5b, 38, 186). On this basis, it should be acknowledged that these studies were likely underpowered to detect the anticipated effects.

Consideration of statistical power in the state-level studies also needs to account for anticipated effects of the manipulated variables. The relevant analysis here is derived from the observed statistical power to elicit medium effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d = 0.50), given that medium-sized effects can be argued to be of both theoretical and practical import. Based on analysis carried out in G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009), the state studies achieved observed power of 0.52-0.79 (Study 3: 0.52; Study 4a: 0.69; Study 4b: 0.71; Study

5a; 0.71; Study 5b; 0.79). Given that empirical studies should be ideally powered at 0.80

(Bausell & Li, 2002), this analysis corroborates the underpowered nature of these studies.

That said, an advantage of the meta-analytic multiple group analyses reported in

Chapter 7 is that effect sizes were derived from pooled samples across studies: thus the 250

estimates for trait-level studies were derived from a pooled sample of 753 participants and those from the state-level studies from a pooled sample of 466 participants. As such, while some of the individual studies reported in this dissertation could be considered underpowered, the conclusions drawn in Chapter 8 were derived from the meta-analytic multiple group analyses, which were substantially higher-powered.

This discussion of statistical power highlights the need for highly-powered replications of the effects observed here. Such studies should aim to maximise sample size as well as to reduce measurement error to improve the accuracy of derived estimates (Loken &

Gelman, 2017; Maxwell, Lau, & Howard, 2015; see measurement lessons learned:

Methodological limitations and future directions).

Theoretical Limitations and Future Directions

Three theoretical limitations will be discussed below: 1) the omission of several discrete positive emotions that may also promote EWB, 2) potential cultural and individual difference moderators of aspects of the proposed model, and 3) potential boundary effects of the benefits of positive emotion for EWB.

First, the research presented here adopted focus on five discrete positive emotions: pride, gratitude, compassion, moral elevation, and admiration. There exist, of course, a number of additional positive emotions that might contribute to EWB. Progressing the differentiated view, future research should consider a broader range of discrete positive emotions. Awe (Keltner & Haidt, 2003), determination (Kirby, Morrow, & Yih, 2014), and love (Shaver, Morgan, & Wu, 1996) represent additional positive emotions in need of research attention in the realm of wellbeing. In light of the insights allowed by the simultaneous consideration of a number of discrete positive emotions in the present research,

I would advocate a similar approach in future research.

251

Second, the present research was limited in its ability to identify whether there exist important cultural and individual difference moderators of the adequacy of the proposed model. On the point of cultural moderators, given that cultural orientation has a strong influence on the confluence of emotion and wellbeing (Kang, Shaver, Sue, Min, & Jing,

2003; Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000), it is plausible that an individual’s cultural orientation may moderate the observed links. For instance, compassion’s contribution to other-focused EWB might be attenuated amongst individuals with strong individualistic cultural orientations (see Boehm, Lyubomirsky, & Sheldon, 2011 for a similar argument as applied to the moderating effect of collectivism on the efficacy of optimism and gratitude to boost life satisfaction). Research recruiting individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds is required to test whether cultural orientation is viable moderator, or not, of the model in its entirety or of specific components of the model.

Turning to individual difference moderators, the Big Five personality taxonomy

(John, 1990) provides a fruitful avenue to explore potential moderation. Indeed, personality modulates the benefits of positive emotions for many different indicators of wellbeing (e.g.,

Alshamsi, Pianesi, Lepri, Pentland, & Rahwan, 2016; Dijkstra, van Dierendonck, Evers, &

De Dreu, 2005; Ng, 2016; Papousek & Schulter, 2008). Taking this research into account, it is plausible that pride’s contribution to self-focused EWB via agency motivation might be heightened among individuals high in conscientiousness, whereas compassion’s contribution to other-focused EWB might be weakened among individuals low in agreeableness. Thus, in addition to examining the moderating effects of cultural background, future research should also assesses whether any of the Big Five personality traits moderate pathways in the proposed model.

Third, it will also be important for future research to establish boundaries at which the positive links between discrete positive emotions and EWB exist. Indeed, extreme levels of 252

positive emotion and motivation are not necessarily beneficial. Very high levels of positive emotion are a known feature of a number of mental illnesses (Gruber, 2011; see Gruber,

Mauss, & Tamir, 2011 for a review). Bakan (1966) argued that it is important for agency to be mitigated by communion, otherwise individuals will focus on the self at the exlusion of others (i.e., unmitigated agency: Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Similary, unmitiaged communion involves focusing on others to the detriment of the self (e.g., worrying excessivley about other’s problems: Helgeson & Fritz, 1999). Unmitigated agency or communion undermines physical and mental wellbeing (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, 2000). Building on this, future research will need to examine whether there is a tipping point after which positive emotions may no longer evince eudaimonic benefits and instead come to undermine them.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the nine studies reported in this dissertation shed light upon the role that discrete positive emotions play in augmenting EWB and the role of communion and agency motivations as key mechanisms of these relationships. Spanning different paradigms and samples, meta-analysed results suggest the following pattern of interrelationships among positive emotion and EWB are robust, at least at the trait level of analysis: Individuals who are dispositionally inclined to experience gratitude, compassion, and pride also experience elevated other-focused EWB. Results also supported the hypothesis that the link between compassion and other-focused EWB is primarily explained via communion motivation and that pride indirectly links to self-focused EWB via agency motivation. Additionally, although a relatively weaker link, admiration can be detrimental to individuals’ self-focused EWB.

Significant heterogeneity within the state-level studies precluded conclusions regarding the adequacy of the proposed model at the state level of experience. This heterogeneity was attributed to measurement choices and the potential for contextual influence on constructs measured at the state level. 253

This research is seminal in its simultaneous consideration of how positive emotions of the same positive valence might differentially impact EWB. Advancing both theory and methodology, this research carries implications for applied and theoretical aspects of positive psychology and affective science alike.

254

References

Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Croudace,

T. J. (2006). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff’s psychological

well-being items in a UK birth cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life

Outcomes, 4(1), 76. http://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-76

Abele, A. E., Hagmaier, T., & Spurk, D. (2016). Does career success make you happy? The

mediating role of multiple subjective success evaluations. Journal of Happiness Studies,

17(4), 1615–1633. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9662-4

Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value

and meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality,

73(1), 79–114. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00305.x

Aghababaei, N., & Arji, A. (2014). Well-being and the HEXACO model of personality.

Personality and Individual Differences, 56(1), 139–142.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.037

Aghababaei, N., & Błachnio, A. (2015). Well-being and the dark triad. Personality and

Individual Differences, 86, 365–368. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.043

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processess, 50(2), 179–211.

Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday

relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x

Algoe, S. B., Fredrickson, B. L., & Gable, S. L. (2013). The social functions of the emotion

of gratitude via expression. Emotion, 13(4), 605–609. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032701

Algoe, S. B., Gable, S. L., & Maisel, N. C. (2010). It’s the little things: Everyday gratitude as

255

a booster shot for romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 17(2), 217–233.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01273.x

Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The “other-praising”

emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology,

4(2), 105–127. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802650519

Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships

in everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425–429. http://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425

Algoe, S. B., & Stanton, A. L. (2012). Gratitude when it is needed most: Social functions of

gratitude in women with metastatic breast cancer. Emotion, 12(1), 163–168.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024024

Algoe, S. B., & Zhaoyang, R. (2016). Positive psychology in context: Effects of expressing

gratitude in ongoing relationships depend on perceptions of enactor responsiveness. The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(4), 399–415.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117131

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Alshamsi, A., Pianesi, F., Lepri, B., Pentland, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). Network diversity

and affect dynamics: The role of personality traits. PloS One, 11(4).

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152358

Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. New York, NY: Chapman &

Hall/CRC.

Anaf, J., Baum, F., Newman, L., Ziersch, A., & Jolley, G. (2013). The interplay between

structure and agency in shaping the mental health consequences of job loss. BMC Public

Health, 13(1), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-110

Appel, H., Crusius, J., & Gerlach, A. L. (2015). Social comparison, envy, and depression on 256

facebook: A study looking at the effects of high comparison standards on depressed

individuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(4), 277–289.

Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral

elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 100(4), 703–718. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022540

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-

analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

http://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the

twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2004). Self-expansion model of motivation and

cognition in close relationships and beyond. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.),

Self and social identity (pp. 99–123). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Mashek, D., Lewandowski, G., Wright, S. C., & Aron, E.

N. (2004). Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1),

101–132. http://doi.org/10.1080/10463280440000008

Aspden, T., Ingledew, D. K., & Parkinson, J. A. (2012). Motives and health-related

behaviour: Incremental prediction by implicit motives. Psychology & Health, 27(1), 51–

71. http://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.541911

Augusto-Landa, J. M., Pulido-Martos, M., & Lopez-Zafra, E. (2011). Does perceived

emotional intelligence and optimism/pessimism predict psychological well-being?

Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 463–474. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9209-

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Australian Social Trends (ABS Catalogue No.

4102.0). 257

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30March%

202009.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Psychological Disability (ABS Catalogue No.

4433102.0). Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4433.0.55.004Main+Features120

12?OpenDocument.

Bach, J. M., & Guse, T. (2015). The effect of contemplation meditation on the psychological

well-being of a group of adolescents. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 359–

369. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.965268

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion.

Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. http://doi.org/10.1086/224499

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Barney, C. E., & Elias, S. M. (2010). Flex-time as a moderator of the job stress-work

motivation relationship. Personnel Review, 39(4), 487–502.

Barrett-Cheetham, E., & Williams, L. A. (2016). Positive emotions and coping. Manuscript

in Preparation.

Barrett-Cheetham, E., Williams, L. A., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). A differentiated approach to

the link between positive emotion, motivation, and eudaimonic well-being. The Journal

of Positive Psychology, 11(6), 595–608. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1152502

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test

of a four-category model. Journal of Personality, 61(2), 226–244.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Bartlett, M. Y., Condon, P., Cruz, J., Baumann, J., & Desteno, D. (2012). Gratitude:

Prompting behaviours that build relationships. Cognition & Emotion, 26(1), 2–13. 258

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.561297

Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it

costs you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319–325. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9280.2006.01705.x

Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively

distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of

Personality, 55(1), 19–39. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x

Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial

motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.

http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1

Bauer, J. J., & McAdams, D. P. (2010). Eudaimonic growth: Narrative growth goals predict

increases in ego development and subjective well-being 3 years later. Developmental

Psychology, 46(4), 761–772. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019654

Beaudreau, S. A., Mackay, A., & Storandt, M. (2009). Older adults’ responses to emotional

stimuli: A cautionary note. Experimental Aging Research, 35(2), 235–249.

Beck, R., & Miller, C. D. (2000). Religiosity and agency and communion: Their relationship

to religious judgmentalism. The Journal of Psychology, 134(3), 315–324.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009600871

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for

experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–

368. http://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Blackburn, R., Renwick, S. J. D., Donnelly, J. P., & Logan, C. (2004). Big five or big two?

Superordinate factors in the NEO Five Factor Inventory and the Antisocial Personality

Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 957–970.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.017 259

Boehm, J. K., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2012). The heart’s content: The association between

positive psychological well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychological Bulletin,

138(4), 655–691. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027448

Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The promise of sustainable happiness. In S. J.

Lopez & C. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp.

667–678). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0063

Boehm, J. K., Lyubomirsky, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). A longitudinal experimental study

comparing the effectiveness of happiness-enhancing strategies in Anglo Americans and

Asian Americans. Cognition & Emotion, 25(7), 1263–1272.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.541227

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons.

Boon, S., & Lomore, C. (2001). Admirer-celebrity relationships among young adults. Human

Communication Research, 27(3), 432–465. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2958.2001.tb00788.x

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-

analysis. Chichester, WSX: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Boscarino, J. A., Figley, C. R., & Adams, R. E. A. (2004). Compassion fatigue following the

September 11 terrorist attacks: A study of secondary trauma among new tork city social

workers. International Journal of Emerging Mental Health, 6(2), 57–66.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.Innate

Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of

identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 552–

565. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552 260

Bossuyt, E., Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2014). On angry approach and fearful avoidance:

The goal-dependent nature of emotional approach and avoidance tendencies. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 50(1), 118–124.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.009

Boylan, J. M., & Ryff, C. D. (2015). Psychological well-being and metabolic syndrome.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 77(5), 548–558.

http://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000192

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new

source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,

6(1), 3–5. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Burns, R. A., & Ma, J. (2015). Examining the association between psychological wellbeing

with daily and intra-individual variation in subjective wellbeing. Personality and

Individual Differences, 82, 34–39. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.023

Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2009). Investigating the structural validity of Ryff’s

Psychological Well-Being Scales across two samples. Social Indicators Research, 93(2),

359–375. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9329-1

Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2010). Identifying gender differences in the independent

effects of personality and psychological well-being on two broad affect components of

subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 22–27.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.007

Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. A. (2012). Moving beyond the pleasure principle: Within and

between-occasion effects of employee eudaimonia within a school organizational

climate context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 118–128.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.007

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, 261

and programming. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Campos, B., Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., Gonzaga, G. C., & Goetz, J. L. (2013). What is

shared, what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight

positive emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 27(1), 37–52.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.683852

Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2011). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness,

relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality, 99(1), 78–106.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018186.

Cappellen, P., Toth-Gauthier, M., Saroglou, V., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2016). Religion and

well-being: The mediating role of positive emotions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17,

485–505. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9605-5

Carlson, J. G., & Hatfield, E. (1992). Psychology of emotion. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich.

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of

six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 211–229.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.211

Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2000). Emotional

experience in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(4), 644–55. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.644

Carver, C. S., Sinclair, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). Authentic and hubristic pride:

Differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. Journal of

Research in Personality, 44(6), 698–703. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.09.004

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the numbers of factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 1(2), 245–276. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102

Clark, J. (2010). Hubristic and authentic pride as serial homologues: The same but different. 262

Emotion Review, 2(4), 397–398. http://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374663

Clasen, P. C., Fisher, A. J., & Beevers, C. G. (2015). Mood-reactive self-esteem and

depression vulnerability: Person-specific symptom dynamics via smart phone

assessment. Plos One, 10(7), 1/16-16/16. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129774

Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression

coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd editio).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Akin, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A

theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. Taylor, & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology

and health. Hi: Erlbaum.

Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include

design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis.

Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381–398. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Condon, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Compassion for one reduces punishment for another.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 698–701.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.016

Condon, P., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2013). Conceptualizing and experiencing compassion.

Emotion, 13(5), 817–21. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033747

Conger, J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their 263

identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (34), 35–

46.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic

leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747–767.

http://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21

Conway, C. C., Slavich, G. M., & Hammen, C. (2015). Dysfunctional attitudes and affective

responses to daily stressors: Separating cognitive, genetic, and clinical influences on

stress reactivity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(3), 366–377.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9657-1

Cordery, J. L., & Sevastos, P. P. (1993). Responses to the original and revised Job Diagnostic

Survey: Is education a factor in responses to negatively worded items? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78(1), 141–143. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.141

Costanzo, E. S., Stawski, R. S., Ryff, C. D., Coe, C. L., & Almeida, D. M. (2012). Cancer

survivors’ responses to daily stressors: Implications for quality of life. Health

Psychology, 31(3), 360–370. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027018

Courbalay, A., Deroche, T., Prigent, E., Chalabaev, A., & Amorim, M. A. (2015). Big Five

personality traits contribute to prosocial responses to others’ pain. Personality and

Individual Differences, 78, 94–99. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.038

Dagenais-desmarais, V., & Savoie, A. (2012). What is psychological well-being, really? A

Grassroots approach from the organizational sciences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13,

659–684. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9285-3 de Rivera, J., & Grinkis, C. (1986). Emotions as social relationships. Motivation and

Emotion, 10(4), 351–369. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992109 264

de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy.

Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.

http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Instrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and

the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Baumann, J., Williams, L. A., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude

as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10(2),

289–293. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017883

DeSteno, D., Condon, P., & Dickens, L. (2016). Gratitude and compassion. In L. Feldman

Barrett, M. Lewis, & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 835–

846). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.

http://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.95.3.542

Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being.

Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 33–37. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_3

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three

decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.

http://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276

Diessner, R., Solom, R. C., Frost, N. K., Parsons, L., & Davidson, J. (2008). Engagement

with beauty: Appreciating natural , artistic , and moral beauty. The Journal of

psychologyPsychology, 142(3), 303–329.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138 265

Dijkstra, M. T. M., van Dierendonck, D., Evers, A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict

and well-being at work: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 20(2), 87–104. http://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579740

Edmondson, O. J. H., & Macleod, A. K. (2015). Psychological well-being and anticipated

positive personal events: Their relationship to depression. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 22, 418–425. http://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1911

Ekman, P. (1992). Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions.

Psychological Science, 3(1), 34–38. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00253.x

Ellsworth, P., & Scherer, K. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R.

Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (p. 572). New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

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(2), 377–389. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.84.2.377

Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2015). Compassion-based emotion regulation up-regulates

experienced positive affect and associated neural networks. Social Cognitive and

Affective Neuroscience, 10(9), 1291–1301. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv008

Erickson, T. M., & Abelson, J. L. (2012). Even the downhearted may be uplifted: Moral

elevation in the daily life of clinically depressed and anxious adults. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 31(7), 707–728. http://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2012.31.7.707

Fava, G. a., & Ruini, C. (2003). Development and characteristics of a well-being enhancing

psychotherapeutic strategy: Well-being therapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and

Experimental Psychiatry, 34(1), 45–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7916(03)00019-3

Field, A. (2011). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE 266

Publications Ltd.

Figley, C. R. (2002a). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists’ chronic lack of self care.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(11), 1433–1441. http://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10090

Figley, C. R. (2002b). Treating compassion fatigue. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. The

American Psychologist, 55(6), 647–654. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647

Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,

2(3), 300–319. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The

broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P. Devine & A. Plant

(Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1st ed., Vol. 47, pp. 1–53).

Oxford, Oxfordshire: Elsevier Inc. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention

and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000238

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts

build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build

consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5),

1045–1062. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward

emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172–175.

http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00431

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are 267

positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following

the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.84.2.365

Freeman, D., Aquino, K., & McFerran, B. (2009). Overcoming beneficiary race as an

impediment to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of

moral elevation, and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

35(1), 72–84. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208325415

Freund, A. M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2014). Age-related differences in altruism across

adulthood: Making personal financial gain versus contributing to the public good.

Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1125–36. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034491

Fried, E. I., Bockting, C., Arjadi, R., Borsboom, D., Amshoff, M., Cramer, O. J., … Stroebe,

M. (2015). From loss to loneliness: The relationship between bereavement and

depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 256–265.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, Cambs: Cambridge University Press.

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, 4(5), 408–422.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902992464

Fromm, E. (1981). Primary and secondary process in waking and in altered states of

consciousness. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 3(1), 29–45.

Fultz, J., Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Empathy, sadness, and distress: Three related

but distinct vicarious affective responses to another’s suffering. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 312–325. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288142009

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of 268

personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.

Furr, R. M. (2011). Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality

Psychology. Sage. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The motivational dimensional model of affect:

Implications for breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation. Cognition

& Emotion, 24(2), 322–337. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903378305

Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive expectancies and mental health: Identifying

the unique contributions of hope and optimism. The Journal of Positive Psychology,

4(6), 548–556. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157166

Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-

being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2009.00573.x

Gallagher, V. C., & Meurs, J. A. (2015). Positive affectivity under work overload: Evidence

of differential outcomes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 32, 4–14.

http://doi.org/10.1002/CJAS.1309

Garbin, C. P. (2016). Example of “Tracking” a suppressor effect in a multiple regression

model. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from

http://psych.unl.edu/psycrs/statpage/mr_suppressor.pdf

Garland, E. L., Fredrickson, B., Kring, A. M., Johnson, D. P., Meyer, P. S., & Penn, D. L.

(2010). Upward spirals of positive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity:

Insights from the broaden-and-build theory and affective neuroscience on the treatment

of emotion dysfunctions and deficits in psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review,

30(7), 849–864. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.002

Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten

Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. Dokumentation der Instrumentenentwicklung BFI-S 269

auf Basis des SOEP-Pretests 2005. Berlin, BA: German Institute for Economic

Research.

Girden, E. R. (1992). ANOVA: Repeated measures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis

and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351–374.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.

Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012). To have and to

hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 257–274. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0028723

Gordon, C. L., Arnette, R. A. M., & Smith, R. E. (2011). Have you thanked your spouse

today?: Felt and expressed gratitude among married couples. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50(3), 339–343. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.012

Gotiman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple

will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745.

Gowan, M. A. (2012). Employability, well-being and job satisfaction following a job loss.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(8), 780–798.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets

of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Rosenblatt, A., Burling, J., Lyon, D., … Pinel,

E. (1992). Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence that self-esteem

serves an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

63(6), 913–922. 270

Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. L. (2010). Influence of different positive

emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10(2),

190–206. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018421

Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2010). The many shades of rose-colored

glasses: An evolutionary approach to the influence of different positive emotions.

Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 238–250. http://doi.org/10.1086/651442

Gross, P. R. (1994). A pilot study of the contribution of empathy to burnout in Salvation

Army Officers. Work & Stress, 8(1), 68–74. http://doi.org/10.1080/02678379408259977

Grossbaum, M. F., & Bates, G. W. (2002). Correlates of psychological well-being at midlife:

The role of generativity, agency and communion, and narrative themes. International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2), 120–127.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000654

Gruber, J. (2011). A review and synthesis of positive emotion and reward disturbance in

bipolar disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(5), 356–65.

http://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.776

Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why

happiness is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 222–233.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406927

Gruber, J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Johnson, S. L. (2011). A discrete emotions approach to

positive emotion disturbance in depression. Cognition & Emotion, 25(1), 40–52.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003615984

Güsewell, A., & Ruch, W. (2012). Are only emotional strengths emotional? Character

strengths and disposition to positive emotions. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-

Being, 4(2), 218–239. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01070.x

Hagemeyer, B., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). Assessing implicit motivational orientations in couple 271

relationships: The Partner-Related Agency and Communion Test (PACT).

Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 114–128. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024822

Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality -

Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research

in Personality, 46(3), 355–359. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008

Haidt, J. (2003a). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes & J.

Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Haidt, J. (2003b). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith

(Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford

University Press.

Haisken-De New, J. P., & Frick, J. (2005). Desktop companion to the German Socio-

Economic Panel Study (GSOEP). Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research.

Halford, W. K., & Sweeper, S. (2013). Trajectories of adjustment to couple relationship

separation. Family Process, 52(2), 228–243. http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12006

Hamaker, E. L., Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2007). The integrated trait-state

model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 295–315.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.003

Harmon-Jones, E., Amodio, D. M., & Zinner, L. R. (2007). Social psychological methods of

emotion elicitation. In J. Coan & J. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and

assessment (pp. 91–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

http://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.7.863

Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. a., & Price, T. F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow

and positive affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational

intensity on cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301– 272

307. http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413481353

Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, H., & Vaughn, K. (2003). The dissonance-inducing effects of an

inconsistency between experienced empathy and knowledge of past failures to help:

Support for the action-based model of dissonance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,

25(1), 69–78. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_5

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Heckert, T. M., Cuneio, G., Hannah, A. P., Adams, P. J., Droste, H. E., Mueller, M. A., …

Roberts, L. L. (1999). Creation of a New Needs Assessment Questionnaire. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 15(I), 121–136.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and

potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 412–428.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.412

Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion:

Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2),

131–158. http://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2241

Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency and

unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality,

68(6), 1031–1057. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00125

Helgeson, V. S., & Palladino, D. K. (2012). Agentic and communal traits and health:

Adolescents with and without diabetes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4),

415–428. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427149

Hemenover, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Anger, personality, and optimistic stress appraisals.

Cognition & Emotion, 18(3), 363–382. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000103 273

Hermes, M., Hagemann, D., Naumann, E., & Walter, C. (2011). Extraversion and its positive

emotional core - Further evidence from neuroscience. Emotion, 11(2), 367–378.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021550

Herrald, M. M., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Patterns of emotion-specific appraisal, coping, and

cardiovascular reactivity during an ongoing emotional episode. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83(2), 434–450. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.434

Holbrook, C., Piazza, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2014). Conceptual and empirical challenges to

the “Authentic” versus “Hubristic” model of pride. Emotion, 14(1), 17–32.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031711

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.

Horton, R. S., Reid, C. A., Barber, J. M., Miracle, J., & Green, J. D. (2014). An experimental

investigation of the influence of agentic and communal Facebook use on grandiose

narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 93–98.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.038

Howell, R. T., Chenot, D., Hill, G., & Howell, C. J. (2011). Momentary happiness: The role

of psychological need satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1), 1–15.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9166-1

Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In H. Tinsley & S. Brown (Eds.),

Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465–497).

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

IBM Corporation. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM 274

Corporation.

Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2011). Me, my “self” and you: Neuropsychological relations

between social emotion, self-awareness, and morality. Emotion Review, 3(3), 313–315.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402391

Isen, A. M. (2000). Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation. Psychological

Inquiry, 11(3), 184–187. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1103

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative

problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122–31.

Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive

affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48(6), 1413–1426. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413

Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Reseach

Psychologists Press.

Jakobs, E., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (1999). Social motives, emotional feeling,

and smiling. Cognition and Emotion, 13(4), 321–345.

http://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379212

Jia, L., Tong, E. M. W., & Lee, L. N. (2014). Psychological “gel” to bind individuals’ goal

pursuit: Gratitude facilitates goal contagion. Emotion, 14(4), 748–760.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0036407

John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural

language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory

and research. (pp. 66–100). New York, NY: Guildford.

Jordan, K. D., Masters, K. S., Hooker, S. A., Ruiz, J. M., & Smith, T. W. (2014). An

interpersonal approach to religiousness and spirituality: Implications for health and well-

being. Journal of Personality, 82(5), 418–431. http://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12072 275

Joshanloo, M. (2015). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic

aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of

Happiness Studies. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9683-z

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. London, LDN: Kegan Paul Trench

Trubner.

Kafka, G. J., & Kozma, A. (2002). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological

Well-Being (SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective well-being. Social

Indicators Research, 57(2), 171–190. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014451725204

Kang, S.-M., Shaver, P. R., Sue, S., Min, K.-H., & Jing, H. (2003). Culture-specific patterns

in the prediction of life satisfaction: Roles of emotion, relationship quality, and self-

esteem. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1596–1608.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203255986

Karaçanta, A., & Fitness, J. (2006). Majority support for minority out-groups: The roles of

compassion and guilt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(11), 2730–2749.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00125.x

Karantzas, G. C., & Gillath, O. (2017). Stress and wellbeing during chronic illness and

partner death in later-life: The role of social support. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13,

75–80. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.009

Kashdan, T. B., Uswatte, G., & Julian, T. (2006). Gratitude and hedonic and eudaimonic

well-being in Vietnam war veterans. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(2), 177–199.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.005

Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical

Association, 90(430), 773–795.

Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion,

13(5), 467–480. http://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379140 276

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion.

Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930244000318

Keresteš, G., Brković, I., & Jagodić, G. K. (2012). Predictors of psychological well-being of

adolescents’ parents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1073–1089.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9307-1

Keyes, C., Kendler, K. S., Myers, J. M., & Martin, C. C. (2015). The Genetic overlap and

distinctiveness of flourishing and the big five personality traits. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 16(3), 655–668. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9527-2

Keyes, C., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical

encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–

1022. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.1007

Kim, J., Han, J. Y., Shaw, B., McTavish, F., & Gustafson, D. (2010). The roles of social

support and coping strategies in predicting breast cancer patients’ emotional well-being.

Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 543–552.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309355338

Kirby, L. D., Morrow, J., & Yih, J. (2014). The challenge of challenge: Pursuing

determination as an emotion. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds.),

Handbook of positive emotions (pp. 378–395). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being:

Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 93–124.

http://doi.org/10.1080/026999300379003

Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2009). Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism and its

role in psychological well-being. Political Psychology, 30(5), 755–777.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00724.x

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New 277

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kreibig, S. D., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Scherer, K. R. (2010). Psychophysiological effects of

emotional responding to goal attainment. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 474–487.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.11.004

Kubacka, K. E., Finkenauer, C., Rusbult, C. E., & Keijsers, L. (2011). Maintaining close

relationships: Gratitude as a motivator and a detector of maintenance behavior.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1362–1375.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211412196

Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always the best

medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor

- International Journal of Humor Research, 17(1–2), 135–168.

http://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.002

Lagotte, A. E. (2014). Eliciting discrete positive emotions with vignettes and films: A

validation study. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Vanderbilt University.

Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Expressing gratitude to a partner leads to more

relationship maintenance behavior. Emotion, 11(1), 52–60.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021557

Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. (2012). Gratitude and depressive

symptoms: The role of positive reframing and positive emotion. Cognition & Emotion,

26(4), 615–633. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.595393

Lambert, N. M., Graham, S. M., Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. (2009). A changed

perspective: How gratitude can affect sense of coherence through positive reframing.

The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 461–470.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157182

Lang, F. R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of 278

the Big Five: robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior

Research Methods, 43, 548–567. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0066-z

Larocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. P. (1980). Social support, occupational stress,

and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 202–218.

Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2012). Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in

complex latent variable models. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 3–16.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110391673

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Applied Research. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229–252.

Lee, T. M. C., Leung, M. K., Hou, W. K., Tang, J. C. Y., Yin, J., So, K. F., … Chan, C. C. H.

(2012). Distinct neural activity associated with focused-attention meditation and loving-

kindness meditation. PLoS ONE, 7(8). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040054

Lench, H. C., Flores, S. A., & Bench, S. W. (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes in

cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: A meta-analysis of

experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 834–855.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024244

Levenson, R. W. (1999). The intrapersonal functions of emotion. Cognition & Emotion,

13(5), 481–504.

Lim, D., & Desteno, D. (2016). Suffering and compassion: The links among adverse life

experiences, empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Emotion, 16(2), 175–182.

Lindfors, P., Berntsson, L., & Lundberg, U. (2006). Factor structure of Ryff’s Psychological

Well-Being Scales in Swedish female and male white-collar workers. Personality and

Individual Differences, 40, 1213–1222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.016

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousands Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications Inc. 279

Liu, M., & Wang, C. (2010). Explaining the influence of anger and compassion on

negotiators’ interaction goals: An assessment of trust and distrust as two distinct

mediators. Communication Research, 37(4), 443–472.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362681

Liu, Y. (2015). The longitudinal relationship between Chinese high school students’

academic stress and academic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 38,

123–126. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.002

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models

on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Increasing the salience of one’s best selves can

undermine inspiration by outstanding role models. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76(2), 214–228. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.214

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2013). Estimating the reliability of a single-item life

satisfaction meausures: Results from four national panel studies. Social Cognitive and

Affective Neuroscience, 105(3), 323–331. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9783-

z.Estimating

Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and

motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56(3), 239–249.

http://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.239

Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness. London, LDN: The Penguin Press.

Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier

takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost

well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391–402. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022575

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary 280

reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The

architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131.

http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

Lyubomirsky, S., & Tucker, K. L. (1998). Implications of individual differences in subjective

happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life events. Motivation and

Emotion, 22(2), 155–186. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021396422190

Macaskill, A., & Denovan, A. (2014). Assessing psychological health: The contribution of

psychological strengths. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 42(3), 320–337.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2014.898739

Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the

indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The

five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124–127.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004

Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1993). Mood as input: People have

to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 64(3), 317–326. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.317

Martinent, G., & Ferrand, C. (2015). A field study of discrete emotions: Athletes’ cognitive

appraisals during competition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Taylor &

Francis. http://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.975176

Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in appraisals for

pride, shame, and guilt. In J. Tangney & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), The psychology of shame, 281

guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 64–113). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van

Nostrand.

Mathews, A., Fox, E., Yiend, J., & Calder, A. (2003). The face of fear: Effects of eye gaze

and emotion on visual attention. Visual Cognition, 10(7), 823–835.

http://doi.org/10.1080/13506280344000095

Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s.

International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.

McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of agency and

communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 339–

377.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: the full five-factor model and

well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232.

http://doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700217

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A

conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

82(1), 112–127. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.112

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a

moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249–266. http://doi.org/10.1037//0033-

2909.127.2.249

McCullough, M. E., Kimeldorf, M. B., & Cohen, A. D. (2008). An adaptation for altruism?

The social causes, social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 17(4), 281–285. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8721.2008.00590.x

McKerlich, R., Ives, C., & McGreal, R. (2016). Understanding the sustained use of online 282

health communities from a self-determination perspective. Journal of the Association for

Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 2842–2857. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi

Michie, S. (2009). Pride and gratitude: How positive emotions influence the prosocial

behaviors of organizational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

15(4), 393–403. http://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809333338

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001).

Attachment theory and reactions to others’ needs: Evidence that activation of the sense

of attachment security promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81(6), 1205–1224. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1205

Mongrain, M., Chin, J. M., & Shapira, L. B. (2011). Practicing compassion increases

happiness and self-esteem. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(6), 963–981.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9239-1

Moore, S., Grunberg, L., Greenberg, E., & Sikora, P. (2007). Type of job loss and its impact

on decision control, mastery, and depression: Comparison of employee and company-

stated reasons. Current Psychology, 26(2), 71–85. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-007-

9007-5

Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Auweele, Y. V. (2009). Beyond positive and

negative affect: Achievement goals and discrete emotions in the elementary physical

education classroom. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 336–343.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.11.004

Muthén, B. O. (2005). Mplus discussion: Weighted root mean square residual. Retrieved

from http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/11/827.html?1395019483

Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus discussion: Comparison of coefficients across groups.

Retrieved from

http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/11/2298.html?1460555985 283

Muthén, B. O. (2013). Comparison of coefficients across groups. Retrieved from

http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/11/2298.html?1460555985

Muthén, L. K. (2007). Mplus discussion: Multiple group analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/11/2080.html?1459729067

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén.

Nezlek, J. B., Newman, D. B., & Thrash, T. M. (2016). A daily diary study of relationships

between feelings of gratitude and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–10.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1198923

Ng, W. (2016). Use of positive interventions: Does neuroticism moderate the sustainability of

their effects on happiness? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(1), 51–61.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1025419

Nicolaisen, M., & Thorsen, K. (2014). Loneliness among men and women - A five-year

follow-up study. Aging & Mental Health, 18(2), 194–206.

http://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.821457

Nir, Z., & Neumann, L. (1990). Motivation patterns, self-esteem, and depression of patients

after first myocardial infarction. Behavioral Medicine, 16(2), 62–66.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.1990.9934593

Nunnally, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Öhman, A. (1986). Face the beast and fear the face: Animal and social fears as prototypes for

evolutionary analyses of emotion. Psychophysiology, 23(2), 123–146.

Orth, U., Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (2015). Self-esteem development across the life span: A

longitudinal study with a large sample from germany. Developmental Psychology, 51(2),

248–259. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038481.supp How 284

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Soto, C. J. (2010). Tracking the trajectory of shame, guilt, and

pride across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 1061–

1071. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021342

Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014). On being grateful and kind:

Results of two randomized controlled trials on study-related emotions and academic

engagement. The Journal of Psychology, 148(1), 37–60.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.742854

Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of

self-other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 618–630.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017628

Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a

participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon

Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.

http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1626226

Papousek, I., & Schulter, G. (2008). Effects of a mood-enhancing intervention on subjective

well-being and cardiovascular parameters. International Journal of Behavioral

Medicine, 15(4), 293–302. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802365508

Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two replicable

suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2),

303–328. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902

Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Joseph, T. (1981). The stress process.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(4), 337–356.

Pedersen, C. B., Mors, O., Bertelsen, A., Waltoft, B. L., Agerbo, E., McGrath, J. J., … Eaton, 285

W. W. (2014). A comprehensive nationwide study of the incidence rate and lifetime risk

for treated mental disorders. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(5), 573–81.

http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.16

Peixoto, F., Sanches, C., Mata, L., & Monteiro, V. (2016). “How do you feel about math?”:

Relationships between competence and value appraisals, achievement emotions and

academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0299-4

Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of

the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,

38, 8–24. http://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809349858

Phillips, J. S., & Freedman, S. M. (1985). Contingent pay and intrinsic task interest:

Moderating effects of work values. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 306–313.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.306

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in

social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of

Psychology, 63, 539–569. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40(3), 879–91. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Ptacek, J., Pierce, G., & Ptacek, J. (2007). Satisfaction with health care, psychological

adjustment, and community esteem among breast cancer survivors. Journal of

Psychosocial Oncology, 25(2), 37–58. http://doi.org/10.1300/J077v25n02

Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological

Methodology, 25, 111–163.

Ramsey, M. A., & Gentzler, A. L. (2015). An upward spiral: Bidirectional associations 286

between positive affect and positive aspects of close relationships across the life span.

Developmental Review, 36, 58–104. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.003

Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult attachment

measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69(4), 419–432.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.006

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-

being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

Roger, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Muffin.

Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General

Psychology, 2(3), 247–270. http://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.2.3.247

Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S., Rush, J. C., & Icing, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive

ability predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 86(4), 516–530.

Rudolph, U., Roesch, S., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of

help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general

theory of motivation. Cognition & Emotion, 18(6), 815–848.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000248

Ruini, C., & Vescovelli, F. (2013). The role of gratitude in breast cancer: Its relationships

with post-traumatic growth, psychological well-being and distress. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 14, 263–274. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9330-x

Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor

analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629–1646. http://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237645

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic 287

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research

on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2012). The darker and brighter sides of human existence : Basic

psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319–338.

Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory

perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–

1081. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069

Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 4(4), 99–104. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395

Ryff, C. D., Keyes, C., & Hughes, D. L. (2003). Status inequalities, perceived discrimination,

and eudaimonic well-being: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose and

growth? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 275–291.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Dienberg Love, G. (2004). Positive health: connecting well-

being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences, 359(1449), 1383–1394. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1521

Samios, C., Abel, L. M., & Rodzik, A. K. (2013). The protective role of compassion

satisfaction for therapists who work with sexual violence survivors: An application of 288

the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 26(6),

610–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2013.784278

Sarapin, S. H., Christy, K., Lareau, L., Krakow, M., & Jensen, J. D. (2014). Identifying

admired models to increase emulation: Development of a multidimensional admiration

scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48(2), 95–108.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614544690

Sauter, D. (2010). More than happy: The need for disentangling positive emotions. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 36–40.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359290

Scherer, K. (1994). An emotion’s occurrence depends on the relevance of an event to the

organisms goal/need hierachy. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of

emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 227–231). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Schindler, I., Paech, J., & Löwenbrück, F. (2015). Linking admiration and adoration to self-

expansion: Different ways to enhance one’s potential. Cognition and Emotion, 29(2),

292–310. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.903230

Schindler, I., Zink, V., Windrich, J., & Menninghaus, W. (2013). Admiration and adoration:

Their different ways of showing and shaping who we are. Cognition & Emotion, 27(1),

85–118. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.698253

Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria: A review and

resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24(3), 419–434.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00365.x

Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of

careless respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(4), 367–373.

http://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900405 289

Schnall, S., & Roper, J. (2012). Elevation puts moral values into action. Social Psychological

and Personality Science, 3(3), 373–378. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611423595

Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2010). Elevation leads to altruistic behavior.

Psychological Science, 21(3), 315–20. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609359882

Schutte, N. S. (2014). The broaden and build process: Positive affect, ratio of positive to

negative affect and general self-efficacy. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 66–

74. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.841280

Schwartz, C. E., Keyl, P. M., Marcum, J. P., & Bode, R. (2009). Helping others shows

differential benefits on health and well-being for male and female teens. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 10, 431–448. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9098-1

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–21.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

Shaver, P. R., Morgan, H., & Wu, S. (1996). Is love a basic’’ emotion? Personal

Relationships, 3, 81–96. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00105.x

Shaver, P. R., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further

exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

52(6), 1061–1086. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.6.1061

Sheng, C.-W., Tian, Y.-F., & Chen, M.-C. (2010). Relationships among teamwork behavior,

trust, perceived team support, and team commitment. Social Behavior and Personality,

38(10), 1297–1305. http://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.10.1297

Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004). Positive emotion and the

regulation of interpersonal relationships. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The

regulation of emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially 290

associated with big five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833

Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Danvers, A. F., Osborne, E. A., Sng, O., & Yee, C. I. (2014).

Positive emotion differentiation: A functional approach. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 8(3), 104–117. http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12092

Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Yeung, W. H., Moser, S. E., & Perea, E. F. (2011). Feeling

good: Autonomic nervous system responding in five positive emotions. Emotion, 11(6),

1368–1378. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024278

Siedlecka, E., Capper, M. M., & Denson, T. F. (2015). Negative emotional events that people

ruminate about feel closer in time. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 1–18.

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117105

Siegel, J. T., Thomson, A. L., & Navarro, M. A. (2014). Experimentally distinguishing

elevation from gratitude: Oh, the morality. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(5),

414–427. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.910825

Silvers, J. A., & Haidt, J. (2008). Moral elevation can induce nursing. Emotion, 8(2), 291–5.

http://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.291

Siu, O. L., Cheung, F., & Lui, S. (2015). Linking positive emotions to work well-being and

turnover intention among Hong Kong police officers: The role of psychological capital.

Journal of Happiness Studies. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9513-8

Smillie, L. D., Cooper, A. J., Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2012). Do extraverts get more bang for

the buck? Refining the affective-reactivity hypothesis of extraversion. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 306–326. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0028372

Smith, M. (2010). The positive moral emotion video validation library. (Unpublished

master’s thesis). University of Virginia, United States.

Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional 291

envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007–1020.

http://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992511008

Spector, P. E. (2011). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use

of a controversial method. Journal for Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385–392.

http://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150503

Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y. (1997). When Two

Factors Don’t Reflect Two Constructs: How Item Characteristics Can Produce

Artifactual Factors. Journal of Management, 23(5), 659–677.

http://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300503

Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Lian, H. (2014). Helpful today, but not

tomorrow? Feeling grateful as a predictor of daily organizational citizenship behaviors.

Personnel Psychology, 67, 705–738. http://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12051

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 629–651.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056439

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2006). Enhancement of mood and self-esteem as a result of giving

and receiving compassionate love. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11(16), 227–

242.

Steel, Z., Marnane, C., Iranpour, C., Chey, T., Jackson, J. W., Patel, V., & Silove, D. (2014).

The global prevalence of common mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-

analysis 1980-2013. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(2), 476–493.

http://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu038

Stellar, J. E., Cohen, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2015). Affective and physiological

responses to the suffering of others: Compassion and vagal activity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 572–585. 292

http://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000010

Steptoe, A., O’Donnell, K., Marmot, M., & Wardle, J. (2008). Positive affect, psychological

well-being, and good sleep. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(4), 409–415.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.11.008

Storm, C., & Storm, T. (1987). A Taxonomic study of the vocabulary of emotions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 805–816. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-

3514.53.4.805

Struthers, C. W., Perry, R. P., & Menec, V. H. (2000). An examination of the relationship

among academic stress, coping, motivation, and performance in college. Research in

Higher Education, 41(5), 581–592.

Suh, E. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Fournier, M. A., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Gender and

relationships: Influences on agentic and communal behaviors. Personal Relationships,

11, 41–59. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00070.x

Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with

what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163.

http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191

Sundar, S., Qureshi, A., & Galiatsatos, P. (2016). A positive psychology intervention in a

hindu community: The pilot study of the hero lab curriculum. Journal of Religion and

Health, 55(6), 2189–2198. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0289-5

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Thompson, R. B., Peura, C., & Gayton, W. F. (2015). Gender differences in the person-

activity fit for positive psychology interventions. The Journal of Positive Psychology,

10(2), 179–183. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.927908

Thomson, A. L., Nakamura, J., Siegel, J. T., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Elevation and 293

mentoring: An experimental assessment of causal relations. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 9(5), 402–413. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.910824

Thomson, A. L., & Siegel, J. T. (2016). Elevation: A review of scholarship on a moral and

other-praising emotion. The Journal of Positive Psychology.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1269184

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–889.

http://doi.org/10.1177/097133360101300201

Tian, L., Pi, L., Huebner, E., & Du, M. (2016). Gratitude and adolescents’ subjective well-

being in school: The multiple mediating roles of basic psychological needs satisfaction

at school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01409

Tong, E. M. W. (2015). Differentiation of 13 positive emotions by appraisals. Cognition &

Emotion, 29(3), 484–503. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.922056

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and

the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.

http://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(90)90017-Z

Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2009). Authentic and

hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Self and Identity, 8(2–

3), 196–213. http://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802505053

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two

facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506–25.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506

Tracy, J. L., Weidman, A. C., Cheng, J. T., & Martens, J. P. (2013). Pride: The fundamental

emotion of success, power, and status. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby

(Eds.), Handbook of positive emotions (pp. 294–310). New York, NY: The Guilford 294

Press.

Trute, B., & Benzies, K. M. (2012). Mother positivity and family adjustment in households

with children with a serious disability. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 411–

417. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9492-x

Trute, B., Benzies, K. M., Worthington, C., Reddon, J. R., & Moore, M. (2010). Accentuate

the positive to mitigate the negative: Mother psychological coping resources and family

adjustment in childhood disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability,

35(1), 36–43. http://doi.org/10.3109/13668250903496328

Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Barrett, L. F. (2004). Psychological resilience and

positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping

and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1161–1190. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2004.00294.x

UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. (2016a). Mplus class notes: Freeing, constraining, and

testing parameters. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mplus/seminars/introMplus_part2/additional.htm

UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. (2016b). Why is Mplus excluding cases with missing

values when the model does not specify listwise deletion? Retrieved October 16, 2016,

from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mplus/faq/fiml_counts.htm

Valdesolo, P., & Desteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion.

Emotion, 11(2), 262–6. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021302 van de Ven, N. (2015). Envy and admiration: Emotion and motivation following upward

social comparison. Cognition and Emotion, 1–8.

http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1087972 van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). Why envy outperforms admiration.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 784–795. 295

http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400421

Van de Vyver, J., & Abrams, D. (2015). Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the

prototypical moral emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage

increases justice behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 23–33.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.12.005 van der Ploeg, M. M., Brosschot, J. F., Thayer, J. F., & Verkuil, B. (2016). The implicit

positive and negative affect test: Validity and relationship with cardiovascular stress-

responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–16. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00425 van der Schalk, J., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. (2012). Regulating emotion in the context of

interpersonal decisions: The role of anticipated pride and regret. Frontiers in

Psychology, 3(November), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00513

Vander Elst, T., Richter, A., Sverke, M., Näswall, K., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014).

Threat of losing valued job features: The role of perceived control in mediating the

effect of qualitative job insecurity on job strain and psychological withdrawal. Work &

Stress, 28(2), 143–164. http://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.899651

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, S., De Witte, H., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The“why”

and“why not” of job search behaviour: Their relation to searching, unemployment

experience, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 345–363.

http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.202

Vaughan, J., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Arnau, R. C. (2014). Self-Esteem instability and humor

styles: Does the stability of self-esteem influence how people use humor. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 154, 299–310. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.896773

Vazi, M. L. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Van den Borne, B., Martin, G., Dumont, K., & Reddy, P. S.

(2013). The relationship between wellbeing indicators and teacher psychological stress

in Eastern Cape public schools in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 296

39(1), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i1.1042

Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Morley, S. (2004). Active despite pain: The putative role of stop-rules

and current mood. Pain, 110, 512–516. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.037

Wadlinger, H. A., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2006). Positive mood broadens visual attention to

positive stimuli. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 87–99. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-

9021-1

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness

(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

64(4), 678–691. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678

Watkins, P. C. (2004). Gratitude and subjective well-being. In R. A. Emmons & M. E.

McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford

University Press.

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: An International Journal, 31(5), 431–451.

http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431

Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6), 1063–70.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological

Bulletin, 98(2), 219–335.

Webster, J. D., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2014). Wisdom and mental health

across the lifespan. Journals of Gerontology, Series B Psychological Sciences and

Social Sciences, 69(2), 209–218. http://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs121

Whelan, D. C., & Zelenski, J. M. (2012). Experimental evidence that positive moods cause 297

sociability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 430–437.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611425194

Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 765–778.

http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.44.4.765

Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the under-

standing and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W. Grove (Eds.),

Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everett Meehl (pp. 89–113).

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Williams, C. A. (1989). Empathy and burnout in male and female helping professionals.

Research in Nursing & Health, 12, 169–178.

Williams, L. A., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2015). Warm thanks: Gratitude expression facilitates

social affiliation in new relationships via perceived warmth. Emotion, 15(1), 1–5.

http://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000017

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of

pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1007–1017.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1007

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: Adaptive social emotion or seventh sin?

Psychological Science, 20(3), 284–8. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02292.x

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2010). Pride in parsimony. Emotion Review, 2(2), 180–181.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909355015

Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude and well-being: A review

and theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 890–905.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.005

Wood, A. M., & Joseph, S. (2010). The absence of positive psychological (eudemonic) well- 298

being as a risk factor for depression: A ten year cohort study. Journal of Affective

Disorders, 122(3), 213–217. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.032

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Maltby, J. (2009). Gratitude predicts psychological well-being

above the big five facets. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 443–447.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.012

Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). A social-cognitive

model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion, 8(2), 281–90.

http://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.281

Woodford, M. R., Kulick, A., Sinco, B. R., & Hong, J. S. (2014). Contemporary

heterosexism on campus and psychological distress among LGBQ students: The

mediating role of self-acceptance. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 519–

529. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000015

Yeung, N. C. Y., Lu, Q., Wong, C. C. Y., & Huynh, H. C. (2016). The roles of needs

satisfaction, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies in promoting posttraumatic

growth: A stress and coping perspective. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,

Practice, and Policy, 8(3), 284–292. http://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000091

Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication,

emotional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital

Therapy, 40(4), 275–293. http://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2012.751072

Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models

with binary and continuous outcomes. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of

California, United States.

Yue, X. D., Cheung, C., & Wong, D. S. W. (2010). From glamour-oriented idolatry to

achievement-oriented idolatry: A framing experiment among adolescents in Hong Kong

and Shenzhen. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), 1–8. 299

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01295.x

300

Appendices

Appendix A: Initial Moral Elevation/Admiration Items

Feeling items

Moral elevation:

1. I frequently feel morally elevated 2. I easily feel uplifted by the selflessness of others 3. I am moved when someone does a kind thing for another person 4. I often get emotional when I witness moral virtue 5. If I had to list all the times someone's generosity moved me, it would be a very long list 6. There are not many people who uplift me morally 7. Long amounts of time can go by before I feel elevated by the kindness of others 8. Someone has to do many kind things for another person for me to feel moved 9. Even one selfless gesture can uplift me

Admiration:

1. I frequently admire the successes of others 2. I easily feel deep respect for the talents and skills of others 3. I am amazed by the accomplishments of others 4. The excellence of others often impresses me 5. If I had to list all the people who I admire for their skills, it would be a very long list 6. There are not many people who I admire for their talents 7. Long amounts of time can go by before I feel admiration for the achievements of others 8. Someone has to achieve many things for me to admire them 9. Even one accomplishment from someone else impresses me

Physical sensation items

Moral elevation:

1. The generosity of others gives me chills 2. My heart is often warmed by the kindness of others 3. The good deeds of others sometimes brings me to tears 4. I feel a warmth or swelling in my chest when I see someone display moral virtue

Admiration:

1. The excellence of others gives me chills 301

2. My heart is often warmed by the achievements of others 3. The accomplishments of others sometimes brings me to tears 4. I feel a warmth or swelling in my chest when I see the success of others 5. When I witness excellence, I sometimes get a lump in my throat

302

Appendix B: Experimenter Script

Experimenter: Bring participant into the lab, and ask them to sit down and read over the participant information sheet, while you go to get the confederate. Explain that you have received an email off the other participant saying they are a couple of minutes away. Close the door most of the way. The confederate will be in the control room and then bring them out to the hall way and start walking towards lab. Bring confederate into lab.

“I’ll be right back. I just need to get the consent forms”. Leave, close main lab door. Confederate: “So are you doing 1A as part of Science or Gen Ed?” Wait for participant to respond. Then say: “I’m doing a Music Degree, so just doing it as part Gen Ed.”

Experimenter: Enter lab when above conversation is finished “So, before we get started I will just give you an overview of today’s study. This research examines group versus individual problem solving. You will complete three types of tasks: first, a joint problem solving task, then an individual problem solving task. We are also interested to see how different factors, such as individual differences, feed into these group versus individual problem solving processes, so the third task will be individual differences questionnaires”.

Hand out 4 consent forms (2 each). “First, if you would like to participate, I need you to read over and sign this consent form. If you would like to keep a copy of the consent form, please sign both copies”. Retrieve signed consent forms. Offer participant and confederate to keep the information sheet and put them in trays. Confederate to say they don’t want a copy.

“The first task is a group based problem solving task and consists of 48 total questions that test your general knowledge. You and your partner will be working together in the sense that you will receive one score for your joint efforts. However, while answering the questions do not talk to one another. You will have 3 minutes to complete half of the questions, so 24 questions. You can leave questions blank or put a question mark next to any answers that you are not fully sure of because after the 3 minutes is up, I will get you to switch clipboards and you will then have another 3 minutes to finish what your partner didn’t know or didn’t have time to answer”. Hand out clipboards with first task. Leave, and start stopwatch.

Confederate will always start with Set 2, use a blue pen and fill out according to the following predetermined answers: 25a, 26 blank, 27a, 28b, 29 blank, 30b, 31b with ?, 32 blank, 33b, 34 d, 35 blank, 36b, 37a, 38b, 39c, 40c, 41c, 42b, 43 blank, 44 blank, 45 blank, 46 blank, 47a with ?, and 48 blank. Note for Q38, show the following working out:

Enter lab after 2 minutes (not 3). Ask them to exchange clipboards. 303

Enter lab after another 2 minutes and collect clipboards and put on tray. “For the next problem solving task, you are going to work alone on the computer and in a sec I will get you to move to the computers. The instructions will be on the computer so you do not need to memorize this. I’m just going to give you an overview of what you’ll be doing”.

“In this 2nd task you will be asked to make quick judgments about whether a string of letters is a real word or not. Strings of letters are going to flash on the computer screen and you will be asked to hit the A key if it IS a word and the 5 key on the number pad if it is NOT a word. You will do 3 blocks of trials and you will receive your trial score after each trial is over. Further, you will also get an overall score on this individual problem solving task. Your overall score will be based on both the speed and the accuracy of your responses, as compared to all other participants who have completed this task in the past. This task has been shown to reliably predict future performance on a variety of tasks relating to intelligence. After the 3rd block of trials a screen will pop up saying that your scores have been processed. I’ll then need to check that the overall score has been recorded on the computer in the other room. Once both of you are finished this individual problem solving task, why don’t…” appear to decide randomly (glance first at participant and then confederate), then, to confederate, “you come and get me. If you happen to finish earlier than the other participant, just wait quietly so you don’t disturb them”.

“To review, you are now going to complete an individual problem solving task and then” to confederate, “you’ll let me know when you’ve both have finished. Go ahead and move to these two computers. You can click the mouse to start when you’re ready”.

Move them to computers (confederate should be closest to door) and SHUT door all the way.

Confederate: After you finish the individual problem solving task, push your chair back and ‘notice’ that the participants’ screen is blank.

“We were doing the same thing right (say this with uncertainty)? My screen says that my scores have been processed, but yours is just black. Maybe something is wrong?” Go retrieve the experimenter. “Hi, I’m not sure, but there might be something wrong with his/her computer. His/her screen is just black with no scores”.

Experimenter: WITHOUT SCRIPT FROM HERE ON OUT. Enter the room. Look at the screen and sigh. “Just great. This same thing happened yesterday. I’ll have to call our IT guy to see if he can fix it for the next session. Then, after I have called him…” pause “I’ll need you to start this task over from the beginning on another computer since we really need all three scores for each participant.. It’s already loaded on that computer”. Point to another computer in room. To confederate: “Look… it’s better if you both complete the next task at the same time so that the data comes through at the same time but I can’t ask you to hang around while we sort this out – I’m not sure how long this will take and I guess you have already completed the problem-solving components. So I guess I will just give you credit and we can have a discussion via email about the research handout. Is that alright?” Wait for confederate to say yes. “I’ll just quickly grab the register and handout. Please sign the register and then you’re free to go”. Experimenter to quickly grab the register from the tray in main room and get confederate to sign it and hand them the handout.

304

Experimenter: To participant: “I’m just going to call the IT guy”.

Experimenter to have call with IT guy (say room 1316, it happened yesterday. It’s a dell. It’s 11.30 now do you think you could come up and fix it etc.). Pull phone out.

Note to confederate: in section below, say either A or B depending on the condition.

A: Confederate: FOR GRATITUDE CONDITION. Wait for experimenter to leave and then get up and proceed to get your bag. As you turn back towards the computers/door: “That really sucks you have to do it again…(check watch or cell phone and appear to hesitate) Mm.. Hang on, let’s see if we can figure it out. It looks like the computer itself is still on... did you try just pressing F8 because I think that helps with the monitor?” (Let them or you press the F8 key. You have 30 seconds to fix the computer)“Nothing? It seems weird that everything still looks like its running. I wonder if it’s a bad connection or something”. Move to the side of the desk and follow the cord to underneath the desk. “There are two cords coming out of the monitor. Let me check this one. Does that help? No? Well, a few of these look loose. Let me try tightening a few things”. Try a few things until the monitor comes on.

A bit loudly to the experimenter: “I think I found the problem!” After experimenter enters, “The cord between the monitor and the computer was pretty loose”.

B: Confederate: FOR OTHER CONDITIONS (i.e., computer auto fixes)

The participant’s screen automatically comes back on. Confederate can’t have left yet, so take time getting bag and checking that everything is in your bag.

Confederate: If participant hasn’t already said the following loudly enough so that experimenter would hear, “Oh! Looks like the screen’s back on!”

Experimenter: Enter lab room. Look at participant’s screen. To participant: “Oh good– they look the same”. Be hesitant as you are pretending to think on your feet. “Well …..we better confirm that your scores have been processed….why don’t you come with me to check on the computer in the other room where they log”. To confederate: “Why don’t you just take a seat here for a minute, I’m sure your scores went through. If everything is all set, you will be able to finish the rest of the experiment”. Confederate to wait in the main room until the participant returns.

Note to experimenter: in section below, say either A or B depending on the condition.

A: Experimenter: PRIDE CONDITION

Experimenter to look at excel spreadsheet. “Good, it looks like your scores have come through. Were they 49, 54 and 58?” Wait for participant to respond. Use tone and smile to convey that you’re impressed. “Overall, that means you got 161 out of 180, a score in the 94th percentile – great job! That means you did better than 94% of people that have completed the study so far. It’s one of the highest scores I’ve seen!”

“Alright, let’s pop back into the other room”. Proceed to main room.

305

B: Experimenter: OTHER CONDITIONS

Experimenter to look at excel spreadsheet. “Good, it looks like your scores have come through. Were they 49, 54 and 58?” Wait for participant to respond. “Alright, let’s pop back to the other room”. Proceed to main room.

Experimenter to take participant into control room, upon return to main room experimenter to say to confederate: “His/her scores have come through after all, so I will get you both to start on the next task”. “I’ll just grab the instructions (appear to be a bit flustered and check one of the trays for ‘the instructions’), which I appear to have left in the other room. To confederate and participant: “I’ll just grab them, so why don’t you guys just have a quick chat…. About your weekend or something?” (say it dismissively - like experimenter doesn’t care what you talk about. Experimenter to have an apologetic face – like you’re not normally disorganised). Experimenter to leave room. Confederate: giggle like it’s funny/a bit strange that the experimenter has said to talk about your weekend.

Note to confederate: in section below, say either A or B depending on the condition.

A: Confederate: FOR POSITIVITY CONDITION

To participant: “Ummmmm (be hesitant to start talking and act like the conversation is a bit awkward/forced)… Okay well….., on Saturday I went to my mate Amanda’s place for a bbq and something pretty funny happened (laugh here, like you are recalling how funny it was). Amanda had been going on and on about how good she is at baking pavlovas. She reckons that her pavlova is pretty much the best dessert ever. So, she served it up and we all took a bite, expecting it to be awesome… but it was disgusting!! I reckon she got the sugar mixed up with salt or something, but whatever it was, I don’t think I’ll be trusting her baking for a while! Anyway, it was pretty hilarious”. Experimenter to text confederate while they are still saying this paragraph, but confederate should only pull out their phone when they have finished saying the last phrase.

B: Confederate: FOR OTHER CONDITIONS:

To participant: ““Ummmmm (be hesitant to start talking and act like the conversation is a bit awkward)… Okay well….., on Saturday I went to my mate Amanda’s place for a bbq. She’s a pretty good cook and bbqed a really nice leg of lamb. She really spoiled us too with the sides- mint sauce, pumpkin, potatoes… oh, and she cooked this amazing pavlova for desert. We basically just hung around there for the whole day. Confederate NOT to mention that they were drinking. It was a pretty chilled out Saturday really”. Experimenter to text confederate while they are still saying this paragraph, but confederate should only pull out their phone when they have finished saying the last phrase.

Experimenter: Text confederate so their phone beeps and then enter the room to begin giving instructions for the next task. “So the next task is fully on this computer – I’ll be logging your…” To confederate, who is looking at their phone: “Is everything alright?”

Note to experimenter and confederate: in section below, say either A or B depending on the condition.

306

A: Confederate: FOR COMPASSION CONDITION: Confederate: Appear to be texting a response on your phone and then sigh and say: “Not really… Well…” (pause and take a breath) “...It’s just I found out a few days ago that my brother has cancer and I just received a text from my mum saying that I need to call her – probably something to do with the whole thing”. Look down at phone. Experimenter: “That’s a tough situation. Ummmmm….How about you go make the call and do what you have to do. I know that I said it’s better for me if you guys start the next task at the same time, but it’s not that important, I’ll just get you to email me so that we can arrange another time for you to come in and complete it. Just email me…” Confederate: “That would be great – I will email you” (maintain a serious demeanour and DO NOT thank the experimenter). Confederate collects bag and leaves. To Participant: “bye” (say this in a way to show that you are preoccupied, rather than upset).

B: Confederate: ALL OTHER CONDITIONS: Confederate: Appear to be texting a response on your phone and then sigh and say: “I’ve just got a reminder text that I have a rehearsal for choir that starts in 5 minutes. I completely forgot, ugh how frustrating. (Confederate to make sure they DON’T apologise to experimenter here). It wouldn’t be a problem normally, but we’ve got a performance coming up soon, and I’ve already missed a couple of rehearsals...”. Look down at phone. Experimenter: “That’s a tough situation. Ummmmm….How about you go and do what you have to do. I know that I said it’s easier for me if you guys start the next task at the same time, but it’s not that important I, I’ll just get you to email me so that we can arrange another time for you to come in and complete it. Just email me…” Confederate: “That would be great – I will email you”. (maintain a serious demeanour and DO NOT thank the experimenter) Confederate collects bag and leaves. To Participant: “bye” (say this in a way to show that you are preoccupied).

Participant to continue on.

307

Appendix C: Study 4a Vignettes

Instructions:

Below you will find a narrative describing a story. Please read the passage and think about it for 5 minutes. Try to process and understand what has been described. Once 5 minutes has passed the continue symbol, ">>", will appear and you will be able to continue on.

Compassion:

Mark is going through some rough times. He struggles to find consistent housing. Sometimes he can stay a few nights at the homeless shelters in the city, but is sometimes turned away, despite having lined up for hours – there is just too much demand. Boarding houses in the city charge a small fee - Mark often can’t come up with the $15.

It was only last year that Mark had been working full-time and putting himself through university part-time. Then, the company started downsizing. His manager told him six months ago that he could only offer him part-time work. Then, only a month later, came the news that he was made redundant.

Mark’s small savings carried him for a month. Then, he sold his car to help make rent, but soon had to move out of his apartment. He refused to impose on his friends and family and now finds himself truly out on the streets. He tries to catch sleep on trains and in shopping centres in the evenings – but the early morning hours were always the hardest. Often, a park bench is the best he can do.

Food is another challenge for Mark. He stops in at the various soup kitchens when he can and sometimes looks for the discards from cafes and restaurants when they close for the day. He knows he’s getting thinner and he risks getting sick, but he doesn’t have many options.

Mark feels truly down-and-out. By now, he has submitted hundreds of job applications – but hasn’t gotten a call back. He chases every small job he hears about – nothing is too small – but the cash he earns just isn’t enough to get him back on his feet.

Moral Elevation:

Trevor is passionate about improving the lives of the homeless in Sydney. Aside from his university coursework and part-time job, he spends all of his time dedicated to helping improve the lives of the homeless and, when possible, move them off of the streets into independent living.

Trevor’s determination to help the homeless was first inspired when he was 11 years old. He had seen a television report about a homeless man living in Sydney. He was touched by the story, feeling a strong desire to find a way to help this man.

Filled with purpose, he had asked his parents to help him find the man to provide some help. The first answer, was no, it was too late in the evening. Plus, his parents explained, it was extremely unlikely that they would be able to find the man.

308

Trevor wouldn’t take no for an answer. In face of his persistence, his parents agreed to drive around and look for the man. Trevor and his mum even found a blanket and pillow that they could give to the man. Although that night Trevor did not find the man he had seen on TV, he had found another man to give his blanket and pillow to. It was a turning point for Trevor.

Even now Trevor still remembers that night. Trevor now volunteers every weekend at a local shelter to provide support and assistance. He also organises charity dinners and donation drives, where the public can donate food, bedding, and clothes. Trevor believes that the holiday season is a special time for families, and he views the shelter as a type of family. So, without fail, every year Trevor organises a December feast at the local shelter. His plan is to apply his university degree to his community work.

Neutral:

Anthony is a first-year university student, who just moved to Sydney. He decided to visit the recently refurbished community centre near his apartment that his roommate had told him about.

He visited on a Saturday – it was full of activity. The centre offered exercise and wellbeing classes. These included meditation, martial arts and Zumba. They also offered classes in the creative arts and adult learning - the brochure Anthony saw listed watercolour, Spanish and cooking. He also saw a flyer for a month-long series on gardening. The woman at the front desk mentioned that the series topic changed each month.

Anthony was reminded of the community centre in his hometown. He had grown up spending most of his time after school there and remembered all the classes and activities he used to attend over the summers. In fact, his hometown community centre was very similar to this new one – similar design and similar themes of programs.

Anthony asked the woman at the front desk about social events at the new centre. She told him that every Friday night they screened a movie and, from time to time, arranged art exhibits and networking events. They even had a great outdoor space where groups could book out a BBQ. The refurbished meeting rooms designed for day- or week-long workshops were upgraded to integrate new technology such as interactive whiteboards.

The local library was adjoined to the community centre. Anthony knew he could utilise it, especially if he needed a quiet place to study. Anthony spoke to the librarian and learned that, in addition to books, the library had an extensive collection of CDs and DVDs that could all be borrowed with a standard library card.

309

Appendix D: Study 4b Vignettes

Instructions:

Below you will find an event describing an experience that a student might have at university. Please read the event and imagine the event happening to you for five minutes. Try to imagine the thoughts and feelings you would have if you were actually in the situation. Once five minutes has passed the continue symbol, ">>", will appear and you will be able to continue on.

Pride:

You have just completed the requirements of your undergraduate degree at the University of New South Wales. During this degree, you have been extremely dedicated towards your studies. You have put in a lot of effort and you have attained an HD average.

You receive a letter in the post from your Head of School to let you know that you have been awarded the University Medal for highly distinguished merit in your program, and that the announcement of this award will be published in the Sydney Morning Herald. A month or so later, it is your graduation ceremony in the Clancy Auditorium.

You are the last awardee from your degree program to be called on stage. Once your name is called, you walk on stage to a loud applause and you hear your fellow students cheering your name. The Dean hands you your degree, shakes your hand and then gives you the medal in its box. You then turn back to face the crowd for the photographer and the applause grows even louder. This has to be one of your most memorable moments.

Admiration:

Imagine that [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] has just completed the requirements of their undergraduate degree at the University of New South Wales. During this degree, [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] was extremely dedicated towards their studies. [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] put in a lot of effort and attained an HD average.

Just after the exam period, [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] receives a letter in the post from their Head of School to let them know that they have been awarded the University Medal for highly distinguished merit in their program, and that the announcement of this award will be published in the Sydney Morning Herald. A month or so later, it is [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE]’s graduation ceremony in the Clancy Auditorium.

[FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] is the last awardee from their degree program to be called on stage. Once [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE]’s name is called, they walk on stage to a loud applause and you hear your fellow students cheering [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE]’s name. The Dean hands [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] their degree, shakes their hand and then gives them the medal in its box. [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE] then turns back to face the crowd for the photographer and the applause grows even louder. This has to be one of [FRIEND’S NAME INSERTED HERE]’s most memorable moments.

310

Neutral:

Imagine that you receive an email sent to your University of New South Wales student email address. You open the email and notice that it is from Student Administration and Affairs. You remember that these emails are usually about university policy and procedures, typically updating students to any changes. This one appears to be sent to the students in the degree program in which you are enrolled, so all your friends in your cohort would have received it too. The subject of the email is “Procedures for Finalisation of Assessment Results”.

The email firstly explains that it provides all university students and staff with an update on the procedures for the finalisation of assessment results across all UNSW courses. The email refers to how finalisation of assessment results were being handled differently in various faculties – and that the new procedures would apply university-wide.

The email then goes onto explain that results are finalised by a set date following the examination period of each session. Those results are then released to all students on another predetermined date. The email describes how procedure states that students can view their results via the myUNSW online portal and that course-coordinators are not to release information prior to that date.

311

Appendix E: Study 5a Autobiographical Recall Instructions

Compassion:

Stage 1

Recall one memory for a specific time or event WHEN YOU FELT COMPASSION TOWARDS SOMEONE WHO WAS SUFFERING. This might be an instance when someone was in need and you wanted to or did help the suffering person. Bring to mind this memory with vivid detail. Take a few moments to get a strong mental image of this memory in your mind. Next, you will be asked to write about this memory. Click ">>" when you have the event vividly in mind.

Stage 2

Now, please describe this memory of a specific time or event when you FELT COMPASSION TOWARDS SOMEONE WHO WAS SUFFERING in as much detail as possible. Describe it as if the person who is to read this memory was not there. Describe the event that happened and how it made you feel. Please write for FOUR minutes. Keep an eye on the timer below. Once four minutes has passed, please continue with the study.

Pride:

Stage 1

Recall one memory for a specific time or event WHEN YOU FELT PROUD OF SOMETHING YOU PERSONALLY DID. This might be an instance when you achieved a goal you had been working towards or when you had success. Bring to mind this memory with vivid detail. Take a few moments to get a strong mental image of this memory in your mind. Next, you will be asked to write about this memory. Click ">>" when you have the event vividly in mind.

Stage 2

Now, please describe this memory of a specific time or event when you FELT PROUD OF SOMETHING YOU PERSONALLY DID in as much detail as possible. Describe it as if the person who is to read this memory was not there. Describe the event that happened and how it made you feel. Please write for FOUR minutes. Keep an eye on the timer below. Once four minutes has passed, please continue with the study.

Neutral:

Stage 1

Think about the SHOPPING CENTRE YOU MOST FREQUENTLY VISIT. This might be a Westfield, Stockland or the Royal Randwick – a retail centre where goods, groceries, and services are sold. Bring to mind this place with vivid detail. Take a few moments to get a

312

strong mental image of this place in your mind. Next, you will be asked to write about this place. Click ">>" when you have the place vividly in mind.

Stage 2

Now, please describe the SHOPPING CENTRE YOU MOST FREQUENTLY VISIT in as much detail as possible. Describe it as if the person who is to read this has never been in this place. Describe the layout of the mall and the different shops in this mall. Please write for FOUR minutes. Keep an eye on the timer below. Once four minutes has passed, please continue with the study.

313

Appendix F: Study 5b Vignettes

Instructions:

Below you will find an event describing an experience that you may have while watching TV. Please read the event and imagine the event happening to you for three minutes. Try to imagine the thoughts and feelings you would have if you were actually in the situation.

Once three minutes has passed the continue symbol, ">>", will appear and you will be able to continue. If you have finished reading the scenario please take some time to imagine yourself in the situation.

[NEXT SURVEY PAGE]

Please take a moment to read the scenario again.

Compassion:

Imagine that you are sitting at home watching 60 Minutes. Tonight the show is focusing on the issue of homelessness caused by job loss in U.S cities. The show focuses on the story of one man, Mark.

Mark has been going through some rough times, especially over the past few months. He struggles to find consistent housing. Between staying with friends and the shelters – it’s never more than two or three nights in a row at the same place. Even finding meals is a challenge. He used to buy lunch at cafés – now he waits until closing time at those same cafés to see if there are perishables they’re giving away.

Last year, Mark had been working full-time and putting himself through university part-time. Then, the company he was working for went bankrupt. Mark’s former manager, who was interviewed by 60 Minutes, said: “I really didn’t want to let Mark go. He was such a great employee. But I had no choice”.

Mark’s savings carried him for two months after he lost his job. When renting his own place was no longer an option, he sold his car to pay for a room in a shared apartment, but soon even that wasn’t feasible. Mark feels truly down-and-out. He has submitted hundreds of job applications – but hasn’t landed anything. He chases every job he hears about – nothing is too small. He just can’t seem to get back on his feet.

Pride:

Imagine that you are sitting at home getting ready to watch an episode of 60 Minutes. You are the focus of one of tonight’s stories – part of an ongoing series called “Everyday Americans Helping Those in Need”.

You turn the TV on just as the segment starts – following you in action as you volunteer at your local community centre. It shows you coming into the centre both morning and night. There are shots of you hanging out with the regular youth attendees, and a scene of you helping to cook the Wednesday night walk-in dinner for local low-income families. They had 314

also gotten footage of the recent meeting you led to organize a charity dinner and donation drive ahead of the holiday season.

The show then cuts to comments from some of the regular attendees of the centre. One youth stated: “[PARTICIPANT’S NAME INSERTED HERE] has made such a difference to my life – always offering a laugh, a shoulder to cry on, or just a patient ear. They deserve an award, really!”, while another client commented “I look for [PARTICIPANT’S NAME INSERTED HERE] each time I come – so dedicated and so good at what they do.” The manager of the community centre also remarks that the community centre wouldn’t be such a success if it weren’t for you. This has to be one of your most memorable moments.

Neutral:

Imagine that you are a sitting at home watching 60 Minutes. Tonight the show is focusing on a new community centre that has recently been built in the closest city to you.

The segment starts off by showing what the centre offers. It first focuses on the exercise and wellbeing classes. These include meditation, martial arts, and Zumba. It also offers classes in the creative arts and adult learning – including watercolour, Spanish, and cooking. There is also a month-long offering on gardening and a three-month long course on basic computer skills (Word, Excel etc.). There is an online booking system for all the classes.

The show next pans to footage of the centre. There are many refurbished meeting rooms designed for day- or week-long workshops that were upgraded to integrate new technology such as interactive whiteboards. The centre even has a great outdoor space where groups can book out a BBQ. There are picnic tables and umbrellas to provide shade. The local library is adjoined to the community centre. The library has an extensive collection of CDs and DVDs as well as books that can all be borrowed with a standard library card.

The segment ends by featuring some of the staff that run the centre – an events coordinator, the adult learning manager, and of course the librarian. All are upbeat and sound really dedicated to their jobs.

315

Appendix G: EWB Confirmatory Factor Analysis

45-item trait factor analysis:

The 2-factor structure (other- and self-focused) of Ryff's (1989) Psychological

Wellbeing Scales (45-item) was confirmed using the multiple-group measurement model function in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2015) across the trait-level studies (Study 1a, 1b, and

2b). According to the cut-off criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Matsunaga

(2010), model fit was not acceptable, χ²(27) = 211.65, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.17; CFI = 0.93;

SRMR = 0.05. One way to improve model fit is to allow the error variances of endogenous variables to correlate (Byrne, 2013; Kline, 2011). Recall from the Analytic Strategy in

Chapter 1, this strategy is considered appropriate if theoretically justifiable (Byrne, 2013;

Cole, Ciesla, & Steiger, 2007; Kline, 2011). Often, this theoretical justification stems from the presumption that the constructs at hand share at least one common omitted cause (Kline,

2011). In the present factor analysis, error variances were allowed to correlate for scales that past research has shown to be strongly correlated (r > 0.6; Ryff, 1989). With these modifications, model fit was acceptable on three out of four indices, RMSEA = 0.08; CFI =

0.99; SRMR = 0.05 (Hu & Bentler, 1995; Matsunaga, 2010) . Though the χ² fit statistic did not meet typical cut-offs (χ²(15) = 37.66, p = .001), it is highly sensitive to sample size, and thus of relatively lower informational value when assessing model fit (Russell, 2002).

316

Self-Acceptance

.80-.82 -.01-.40 Purpose in Life .25-.60 .71-.79 .34-.41

Self- Personal Growth .64-.69 focused .31-.36 EWB .73-.79 Environmental Mastery

.85-.87 . Positive Relations with Others

Figure 22. Measurement model including the range of standardised estimates of loadings across Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b. All listed estimates are significant at p < .001, barring those in italics.

15-item state factor analysis:

Following the same multiple-group measurement model function in Mplus (Muthén &

Muthén, 2015), the 2-factor structure of Ryff's (1989) Psychological Wellbeing Scales (15- item) was confirmed across the state-level studies (Figure 23; Study 4a, 4b, and 5a). Model fit was not acceptable, χ²(27) = 67.69, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.10 (Hu

& Bentler, 1995; Matsunaga, 2010). However, when the error terms of the highly correlated subscales were allowed to correlate (r > 0.6; Ryff, 1989), model fit met acceptable standards

χ²(15) = 28.95, p = .02, RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.07 (Hu & Bentler, 1995;

Matsunaga, 2010).

317

Self-Acceptance

.68-.79 -.38-.14 Purpose in Life

.32-.42 .07-.18 .27-.36 Self- Personal Growth .42-.47 focused -06-.01 EWB .52-.58 Environmental Mastery

. .35-.76 Positive Relations with Others

Figure 23. Measurement model including the range of standardised estimates of loadings across Studies 4a, 4b, and 5a. All listed estimates are significant at p < .001, barring those in italics.

318