This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] On: 05 April 2015, At: 10:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

Does the Thought Count? Gratitude Understanding in Elementary School Students a

Katelyn E. Poelker & Janet E. Kuebli

a

a

Saint Louis University Published online: 01 Oct 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Katelyn E. Poelker & Janet E. Kuebli (2014) Does the Thought Count? Gratitude Understanding in Elementary School Students, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 175:5, 431-448, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.2014.941321 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2014.941321

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY, 175(5), 431–448, 2014 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright  ISSN: 0022-1325 print / 1940-0896 online DOI: 10.1080/00221325.2014.941321

Does the Thought Count? Gratitude Understanding in Elementary School Students Katelyn E. Poelker and Janet E. Kuebli Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Saint Louis University

ABSTRACT. Gratitude, although studied throughout history by scholars from diverse backgrounds, has been largely understudied in psychology until recently. The psychological literature on gratitude is expanding, but it is still particularly limited with children. The authors compared younger (firstand second-grade students; n = 30) and older (fourth- and fifth-grade students; n = 27) children on gratitude-related ratings surrounding gift giving vignettes that included either a desirable (e.g., a birthday cupcake) or an undesirable (e.g., a melted ice cream cone) gift. Empathy was also measured. Hierarchical regressions revealed different patterns of predictors for desirable and undesirable gifts. For desirable gifts, liking significantly predicted gratitude and liking predicted effort. For undesirable gifts, older children and those who perceived the target as liking the gift more predicted higher gratitude ratings. Finally, higher gratitude rating predicted both higher ratings of giver effort (i.e., intention or how hard did the giver try to give a nice gift) and liking of the undesirable gifts. More research on children’s understanding of gratitude is needed but these results suggest that school-aged children take into account givers’ intentions and thoughts behind gift giving in determining feelings of gratitude. Limitations and directions for future research are also discussed. Keywords emotion development, empathy, gratitude

Philosophers, theologians, and scholars of morality have written about gratitude for centuries. The ancient Roman philosopher Cicero was famously quoted as saying, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others” (as cited in Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008, p. 214). Gratitude, defined as thankfulness or appreciation, is considered to be essential for human moral and prosocial behavior and interaction (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). Recently, the field of positive psychology and popular culture have demonstrated increased interest in enhancing individuals’ capacities for gratitude. Research shows some individuals’ well-being may benefit from expressions of gratitude (e.g., Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Despite the recent empirical attention to gratitude, the research base is still limited and little is known about gratitude in school-aged and younger children. The present study investigated school-aged children’s understanding of gratitude in a hypothetical gift-giving situation. Of

Received January 17, 2014; accepted June 30, 2014. Address correspondence to Katelyn E. Poelker, Saint Louis University, Department of Psychology, 221 N. Grand Boulevard, Saint Louis, MO 63103, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vgnt.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

432

POELKER & KUEBLI

particular interest were children’s perceptions of how others react when they receive a desirable gift versus an undesirable one. Gratitude has been labeled a complex emotion (Froh et al., 2008). Unlike basic emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness, fear, and anger), complex emotions are more apt to be culturally influenced and to require higher-level cognitive abilities (e.g., Michaelson & Lewis, 1985). Conventions for expressing gratitude may be rooted in display rules for emotional expression, which could explain why people often show positive emotional responses to undesirable gifts (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Zeman & Garber, 1996). Gratitude, like other complex emotions (e.g., empathy, shame, guilt), often involves taking into account others’ intentions or feelings, and therefore further qualifies as a social emotion. Both the giver’s intention and action need to be understood, along with the outcome that results because of the giver’s actions. Thus, although young children who receive gifts may be able to say “thank you” with or without parental prompting, they still need not understand gratitude to be polite in this situation. As such, display rules do not require children to completely understand the effort or intention of the giver, but instead they can merely provide a rehearsed response. Developments in theory of mind (ToM) may, therefore, be particularly relevant to children’s authentic capacities for gratitude because of the necessity to engage in social perspective taking (Flavell, 2000). In other words, ToM research would suggest that as children mature cognitively they become more able to understand the perspectives and wishes of others, even if these desires are unspoken or contradict their own (Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001). Selman’s (1980) Social Perspective Taking theory may also be another useful framework for situating gratitude understanding in children. This kind of perspective taking occurs when an individual is able to look past his or her own viewpoint and assume the viewpoint of another person in a social situation. Children in this study are likely in either Level 1 (5–9 years old) or Level 2 (7–12 years old) on Selman’s Level 0–4 continuum. Those in Level 1, according to Selman, have trouble distinguishing between intentional versus unintentional actions. Responses to events are highly similar to the original action and reciprocity is straightforward and achieved with concrete actions. At Level 2, children begin to understand that sometimes people’s thoughts are incongruent with their actions. Moreover, children are able to think more objectively about their own feelings. To fully understand what it means to feel grateful for a gift, children need to understand the situation in which a giver provides effort, time or money to buy or make a gift with the intention of making the recipient happy. Other aspects of prosocial development (e.g., sharing, helping) may also underlie children’s experience, understanding, and expression of gratitude. Research is needed to investigate the developmental mechanisms (e.g., cognitive, emotional, social) that may give rise to the emergence of gratitude in children. Researchers studying gratitude in adults have mostly focused on the benefits of gratitude expression and experience rather than gratitude understanding. Kashdan, Mishra, Breen, and Froh (2009) found that women reported expressing gratitude more easily and perceiving more social benefit from doing so than did men. Women also reported experiencing more intense feelings of gratitude than did men. Finally, the expression of gratitude was associated with increased wellbeing for women. Benefits of feeling gratitude were also reported by Emmons and McCullough (2003) in an experimental study of college students and adults with a chronic neuromuscular disease. Participants in a condition assigned to keep a daily gratitude journal reported more positive affect than those in the hassles group and increased incidences of prosocial behavior (via emotional support) than did participants in other groups who instead wrote about either hassles or social comparisons.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

433

The few studies with adolescents suggest similar gender-differentiated results to those found with adults. Froh, Yurkewicz, and Kashdan (2009) studied over 150 early adolescents (11–13 years old) and found that girls indicated feeling higher levels of gratitude than did boys. The authors were also interested in adolescents’ capacity to link feeling grateful with the tendency to pay forward a kind act done earlier on their behalf. Participants, regardless of gender, who indicated a more grateful mood also reported higher levels of prosocial behavior (i.e., paying forward a prior act of kindness) and higher subjective well-being. In one gratitude intervention study (Froh et al., 2008), adolescents assigned to a gratitude condition documented five things daily for which they were grateful. A second group documented daily hassles, while a control group only completed pre- and posttest measures without journaling (i.e., no documenting events) of any kind. Results indicated that adolescents in the gratitude condition reported higher levels of gratitude and lower levels of negative affect over a period of two weeks than adolescents in the hassles group. Those in the gratitude condition were more satisfied with their school experience than both the hassles and control groups when measured both immediately following the intervention and at the three-week follow-up. In the very few studies conducted with school-aged children, the available data suggest that a sophisticated level of gratitude understanding may not develop before middle childhood (around 7–12 years old). Park and Peterson (2006), for example, found that parents were more likely to observe gratitude in their children at age 7 and older than at younger ages. Froh, Kashdan, Ozimkowski, and Miller (2008) speculated that the benefits of feeling gratitude may only arise once children can fully understand intention and have a more mature capacity for empathy. Results of these studies support the hypothesis that middle childhood might need to be reached before children can fully understand the complexity of gratitude. Gordon, Musher-Eizenman, Holub, and Dalrymple (2004) analyzed children’s accounts of gratitude that were taken from a newspaper that published accounts both before and after September 11, 2001. Children wrote a paragraph consisting of things, people, or opportunities for which they were grateful followed by a “because” statement (i.e., “I am grateful for my sister because . . . ”). The authors found that older children (9–12 years old) expressed more gratitude for important people in their lives (e.g., family members and teachers) than did younger children (5–8 years old). Additionally, they reported a trend approaching significance for younger children to be more likely than older children to express gratitude for material objects. Based upon Gordon et al.’s results, it is possible that older children might show gratitude for a gift regardless of its desirability. This could be due to their ability to value their relationship with the giver and be able to recognize the giver’s good intentions or the thought and effort behind the gift. By contrast, younger children’s greater emphasis on the material desirability of a gift than on their relationship with a gift giver might cause them to feel less grateful for an undesirable gift than for a desirable one. At younger ages, a giver’s effort and thoughtfulness may be overshadowed by their evaluation of the gift’s desirability. Thus, compared to children older than 7 years old, younger children’s conceptions of gratitude may privilege material benefits instead of the value of personal relationships. Children’s developing understanding of accidental versus nonaccidental behavior may also contribute to understanding intentions related to gratitude. Brehl (2008) distinguished between conceptions of objective and subjective responsibility in children’s attributions for harmful actions. She noted that before age 7 years, children tend to judge harmful acts by ignoring intentions

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

434

POELKER & KUEBLI

and instead objectively basing their judgments upon the extent of harm that was committed. After age 7 years, however, children’s attributions for harm show an understanding of the original intentions behind actions that have harmful consequences. It is possible that children’s gratitude judgments would demonstrate a similar shift as they get older. Specifically, younger children’s gratitude judgments may reflect attributions based upon objective responsibility, thus focusing their attention on the objective desirability of the gift received while ignoring the giver’s intentions. By contrast, using a more subjective conception of responsibility and relationships, older children might be able to recognize when a gift giver did not intend to give an undesirable gift, and still feel grateful for the thoughtfulness and efforts of the giver. Based on Brehl (2008), we expected that younger children in the present study would give higher gratitude ratings for the gifts that were highly desirable compared to less desirable gifts. Older children, however, may be able to take into account givers’ good intentions and therefore might provide similar levels of gratitude-related ratings for gifts independent of their desirability status. Based on prior gratitude studies with adults and adolescents, we also explored whether gender differences were evident in children’s gratitude-related ratings. To help address these questions, gift desirability was manipulated in the present study via short vignettes describing gift-giving interactions. The present study explored younger (firstand second-grade students) and older (fourth- and fifth-grade students) children’s gratitude understanding in situations when, despite receiving an undesirable gift, a recipient may assume the good intentions of the giver and thereby conclude that the thought behind the gift counted more than the condition or quality of the gift itself. We sought to investigate the emergence of children’s understanding that gratitude for the intention of the giver can coexist with (or even trump) evaluations of the desirability (or lack thereof) of the gift. The possible contribution of individual differences in empathy to children’s gratitude understanding was also of interest. Empathy is a highly prosocial affect, which can foster positive interpersonal relationships. Shelton (2004) described empathy as an integral catalyst of human interaction. According to Shelton, the sense of interconnectedness fostered by empathy is critical for gift giving, which often results in grateful feelings. Lazarus and Lazarus (1994) referred to gratitude as an empathic emotion for the same reasons highlighted by Shelton. Moreover, Lazarus and Lazarus argued that to be fully engaged in gift giving and receiving, both the giver and the receiver must act empathically. In other words, givers and receivers must both assume the role of the other for a brief time (i.e., empathize), particularly for the receiver to understand the giver’s good intention. This would further suggest that display rules (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1972; Zeman & Garber, 1996) often enacted by young children may only provide evidence for a superficial understanding of gratitude. Unlike gratitude, empathy is a well-established area of research in child development and we can apply some of the important findings of this research when thinking about gratitude. Lazarus and Lazarus (1994) claimed that empathy is a precursor to gratitude. As already noted, gratitude has been linked with prosocial outcomes that can serve to reinforce relationships (e.g., Froh, Yurkewicz, et al., 2009). Gordon et al. (2004) also urged investigators to assess children’s empathy more directly in the context of gratitude situations. Consistent also with Frederickson’s (2004) Broaden-and-Build theory of positive emotions, both gratitude and empathy require individuals to expand their perspective taking and subsequently build meaningful relationships with others, which enhances their interpersonal interactions with them in the future. Thus, in the present

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

435

study we also measured individual differences in empathy in order to explore whether or not children who were more empathic would provide higher overall gratitude-related ratings for the gift vignettes compared to children who were less empathic.

METHOD

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Participants The sample (N = 57, 33 girls) included first-, second-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students recruited from three private, Catholic schools in a Midwestern city. Children were divided into a younger group (first- and second-grade students: n = 30, M age = 7.07 years, SD = 0.69 years, girls = 18) and an older age group (fourth- and fifth-grade students: n = 27, M age = 10.11 years, SD = 0.70 years, girls = 15). The majority of participants were Caucasian (89.5%), with the remaining participants being Asian (3.5%) or other (7.1%). The household income level was high with the majority of household incomes equal to or greater than $100,000 (74.7%). Parent education was also high with the majority of parents reporting a minimum of a bachelor’s degree (91.2%). Informed consent was collected from parents prior to the start of their child’s participation and parents completed a demographic questionnaire. Assent was also obtained from each child. A small toy was given as a gift for the child’s participation.

Materials and Procedure Children were read a series of six vignettes about same gender characters in a quiet room in their school followed by administration of an eight-item empathy measure (Bryant, 1982; Dadds et al., 2008). The sessions were audio recorded. Each of the six vignettes portrayed a birthday gift situation in which the target character, a child, received either a desirable gift (i.e., a well-fitting sweatshirt, a birthday cupcake, or a trip to the open ice skating rink) or an undesirable gift (i.e., an ill-fitting sweatshirt, a melted ice cream cone, or a trip to the closed bowling alley). A series of questions, described in more detail subsequently, followed each vignette. Drawings created for this study were used to help participants recall the important details of each vignette. One desirable and one undesirable vignette, each with its accompanying illustration, can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Children were randomly assigned to hear the stories in one of two orders so that approximately half of the children in each age group received each order. In the first order, a desirable gift story was read first followed by an undesirable gift story; the same pattern of alternation continued until all six stories had been read. The second order began with an undesirable story and was followed by a desirable story and then continued with the same pattern of alternation. The sequence of the stories within each of these two larger orders remained consistent. As a manipulation check, children were asked to retell the main points of each story before they answered the ratings questions. Children then used a 6-point Likert-type scale with analog faces to provide ratings in response to a series of questions that followed each vignette. The seven questions addressed the following variables: (a) how much participants themselves liked the gift (1 = a lot not thankful to 6 = a lot thankful); (b) how much the recipient liked the giver (1 = did

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

436

POELKER & KUEBLI

not like it at all to 6 = liked it a lot); (c) how much effort the giver exerted in selecting the gift (1 = did not try at all to 6 = tried a lot); (d) how much the giver liked the recipient (1 = does not like him/her a lot to 6 = does like him/her a lot); (e) how thankful the recipient would feel about the gift (1 = should not try at all to 6 = should try a lot); (f) if roles were reversed (i.e., the birthday child becomes the gift giver, 1 = do not like it at all to 6 = like it a lot), then how much effort the main character should expend buying a gift for their friend; and (g) how much the participant liked the gift. Given the present study’s focus on effort and intention with respect to gratitude, only three questions from the above list were of central interest and analyzed here. These questions included participant ratings of (a) gift liking (how much the target child liked the gift), (b) gratitude (how grateful the target child should be for the gift), and (c) giver effort (how much effort the participant perceived the giver exerting to buy a nice gift). With respect to the analog faces, the positive ratings were represented as three green faces with smiles and the negative ratings were represented as three red faces with frowns. They were displayed in order of increasing size (small, medium, and large for each the red and the green faces) to display the differences in magnitude of the ratings. The session culminated with an 8-item empathy measure adapted from measures designed by Bryant (1982) and Dadds et al. (2008; Griffith Empathy Measure). Sample items included, “When you see another kid who is hurt, do you feel sad for them?” and “When you see a kid standing alone, do you ask them to play with you?” Children’s responses were scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 (a big no) to 4 (a big yes; Dadds et al., 2008). The empathy measure created by Bryant (1982) was previously assessed with a variety of age groups, which yielded the following Cronbach’s alpha levels: .54 for 6–7-year-olds, .68 for 11–12-yearolds, and .79 for 12–13-year-olds. The scale designed by Dadds et al. was completed by parents to provide empathy ratings for their children and thus, the items were adapted for use with children in the present study. As a result, the reliability statistics reported by Dadds et al. are for adult participants. Good interrater reliability was reported for mother’s and father’s assessment of their child’s empathy. The alpha from the adapted empathy measured used in this study was .57.

RESULTS Means and standard deviations for the seven ratings for each of the six vignettes can be found in Table 1. As evidenced by the means in Table 1, there was limited variability in the ratings given by participants. To facilitate a more straightforward presentation of the analyses, aggregate scores (i.e., means) were computed for the three questions pertaining to gratitude, liking of the gift, and giver effort for the undesirable and the desirable gifts. These scores were formed by taking the average of gratitude, gift liking, and giver effort for the desirable and undesirable gifts stories; this yielded a total of six aggregate scores. Analyses were conducted with the two aggregate scores (one desirable and one undesirable) for each of the three questions described previously. The aggregate means and standard deviations are presented both across ages and by age group (younger and older) in Table 2. The empathy measure had a mean score of 29.04 (SD = 2.38), which was nearly at ceiling (i.e., 32). Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted using the aggregate scores to assess different patterns of predictors for the desirable and undesirable gifts. We conducted t tests prior to the regression analyses to test for gender differences in the aggregate ratings. No significant differences were found, and thus gender was dropped in subsequent analyses. Age was analyzed via a dichotomous variable with the first- and second-grade participants in the younger age group

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

437

TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Gratitude Story Ratings

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Liking Giver Giver likes Receiver Effort when giver Rater’s Gratitude of gift effort receiver likes giver becomes receiver liking of gift Story A: Well-fitting T-shirt M SD Story B: Ill-fitting sweatshirt M SD Story C: Birthday cupcake M SD Story D: Melted ice cream cone M SD Story E: Ice skating rink M SD Story F: Closed bowling alley M SD

5.95 0.23

5.91 0.34

5.68 0.54

5.93 0.26

5.95 0.23

5.93 0.29

5.30 0.80

4.88 1.31

4.37 1.46

5.21 1.39

5.67 0.81

5.75 0.76

5.68 0.87

5.68 0.91

5.93 0.32

5.89 0.31

5.98 0.13

5.96 0.19

5.95 0.23

5.98 0.13

5.42 1.05

5.09 1.20

4.68 1.33

5.58 1.10

5.82 0.71

5.79 0.73

5.77 0.78

5.18 1.15

5.84 0.46

5.77 0.46

5.75 0.54

5.86 0.40

5.91 0.29

5.84 0.37

5.67 0.81

4.96 1.40

4.56 1.50

5.89 0.36

5.82 0.74

5.86 0.69

5.79 0.75

5.65 0.64

and the fourth- and fifth-grade participants in the older age group due to the conceptualization of potential age differences in older versus younger children at the start of the present investigation. Given the study design, the aggregate scores for gratitude, gift liking, and giver effort were used both as predictors and outcome variables in the regression analyses.

TABLE 2 Aggregate Means and Standard Deviations for Gratitude Story Ratings

Undesirable gift stories (both ages) M SD Desirable gift stories (both ages) M SD Undesirable gift stories (younger) M SD Desirable gift stories (younger) M SD Undesirable gift stories (older) M SD Desirable gift stories (older) M SD

Gratitude

Liking of gift

Giver effort

5.27 0.75

4.94 0.82

5.51 0.73

5.90 0.29

5.86 0.27

5.81 0.30

5.08 0.89

4.94 0.84

5.40 0.86

5.89 0.34

5.90 0.22

5.86 0.27

5.48 0.46

4.94 0.82

5.64 0.55

5.93 0.23

5.81 0.32

5.75 0.31

438

POELKER & KUEBLI

TABLE 3 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Gratitude for Undesirable Gifts

Outcome variable

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Gratitude for undesirable gift

∗p

Model and predictor variable Model 1 Age Model 2 Age Empathy Model 3 Age Empathy Gift liking Giver effort Model 4 Age Empathy Gift liking Giver effort Age × Gift liking Age × Giver effort

Unstandardized Standardized coefficient (B) coefficient (β)

0.41

.27∗

0.38 0.08

.26∗ .24

0.31 0.05 0.42 0.36

.21∗

2.95 0.04 1.11 0.34 −0.439 −0.079

.14 .47∗∗∗ .35∗∗

1.99∗∗ .14 1.23∗∗ .34 −1.64∗ −.331

Adj. R2

R2

F

df (Regression, total)

.06

—

4.41∗

(1, 56)

.10

.06

4.05∗

(2, 56)

.61

.51

22.85∗∗∗

(4, 56)

.66

.06

19.03∗∗∗

(6, 56)

< .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

In each of the six regression analyses, age was entered first as the sole predictor as a covariate followed by empathy in the second step as an additional covariate. Age and empathy were entered as covariates in each analysis to ensure that any of the potential relationships between the other predictors and the outcome were not confounded with age or empathy. Based on our hypotheses we would expect older children, for example, to yield higher ratings, for undesirable gifts given advanced perspective taking. And although evidence linking empathy and gratitude in children is limited, conceptually those who are more empathic may yield higher ratings because they are more attuned to others’ feelings even in hypothetical situations like these. The third model included the two ratings from the stories that were not the outcome variable (i.e., either gratitude, gift liking, or giver effort). The final model included the interaction terms with age and the predictor variables pertaining to the stories in Model 3 (i.e., either Age × Gratitude, Age × Gift Liking, or Age × Giver Effort). In the first two regression analyses, in addition to age and empathy, gift liking and giver effort were explored as predictors for participant ratings of the target’s gratitude for undesirable and desirable gifts. The details of these analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4. With respect to gratitude for undesirable gifts, the final model was significant with age, liking of gift, and the age by liking interaction emerging as significant predictors, F(6, 56) = 19.03, p < .001. Age and liking significantly predicted gratitude for undesirable gifts. Older children indicated that the target child in the vignette would be more grateful than younger children and those individuals who felt the target child would like the gift more also gave higher gratitude ratings. Follow-up linear regressions for the significant age by liking interaction revealed that the more they felt the

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

439

TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Gratitude for Desirable Gifts

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Outcome variable

Model and predictor Unstandardized Standardized variable coefficient (B) coefficient (β)

Gratitude for Model 1 desirable gift Age Model 2 Age Empathy Model 3 Age Empathy Gift liking Giver effort Model 4 Age Empathy Gift liking Giver effort Age × Gift liking Age × Giver effort ∗∗ p

0.04

.06

0.03 0.01

.06 .02

0.10 −0.01 0.71 −0.03 2.06 −0.01 1.37 −0.12 −0.40 0.06

.17 −.09 .66∗∗∗ −.03

df (Regression, total)

Adj. R2

R2

−.01

—

0.22

(1, 56)

−.02

.01

0.36

(2, 56)

.34

.38

8.32∗∗∗

(4, 56)

.35

.03

5.96∗∗∗

(6, 56)

F

3.54 −.11 1.28∗∗ −.12 −3.94 .61

< .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

target child liked the gift the higher both younger children, F(3, 29) = 26.04, p < .001, and older children, F(3, 26) = 3.76, p = .03, would rate the target child’s gratitude for the gift, but the pattern was much stronger for younger children. Liking was the sole significant predictor in the final model for gratitude for desirable gifts with higher liking predicting higher gratitude ratings, F(6, 56) = 9.12, p < .001. The third and fourth regression analyses examined various predictors’ relationship to participants’ ratings of how much the target recipient in the vignette liked the gift. The details of these analyses are presented in Tables 5 and 6. For undesirable gifts, the final model with the interactions did not yield any significant predictors, F(6, 56) = 9.12, p < .001. As a result, the significant main effects from the preceding model are reported. In the third model. gratitude did significantly predict liking ratings, with more gratitude associated with higher liking for the undesirable gifts, F(4, 56) = 13.94, p < .001. For desirable gifts, the final model, revealed age and empathy as significant predictors, along with a significant Age by Gratitude interaction, F(6, 56) = 11.89, p < .001. With respect to age, younger children rated the target child as liking the desirable gifts more than did older children and those with higher empathy ratings also reported higher liking ratings for the desirable gifts. Finally, the age by gratitude interaction was significant. Follow-up analyses revealed that higher gratitude ratings predicted higher ratings of liking in younger and older participants. However, the pattern was stronger in the older children. Upon inspection of a plot in a follow-up to the interaction, a potential outlier was identified so the analyses were rerun after removing this participant. This revealed a nonsignificant interaction

440

POELKER & KUEBLI

TABLE 5 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Liking of Undesirable Gifts

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Outcome variable

Model and predictor Unstandardized Standardized variable coefficient (B) coefficient (β)

Gratitude for Model 1 desirable gift Age Model 2 Age Empathy Model 3 Age Empathy Gift liking Giver effort Model 4 Age Empathy Gift liking Giver effort Age × Gift liking Age × Giver effort †p

−0.01

−.004

−0.02 0.05

−.01 .14

−0.33 −0.01 0.68 −0.20 −1.19 −0.01 0.38 0.32 0.23 −0.07

−.20† −.02 .62∗∗∗ .18

Adj. R2

R2

F

df (Regression, total)

−.02

—

0.001

(1, 56)

−.02

.02

0.53

(2, 56)

.48

.50

13.94∗∗∗

(4, 56)

.47

.01

9.12∗∗∗

(6, 56)

3.54 −.11 1.28∗∗ −.12 −3.942 .61

= .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001. TABLE 6 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Liking of Desirable Gifts

Outcome variable

Model and predictor Unstandardized Standardized variable coefficient (B) coefficient (β)

Liking for Model 1 desirable gift Age Model 2 Age Empathy Model 3 Age Empathy Gratitude Giver effort Model 4 Age Empathy Gratitude Giver effort Age × Gratitude Age × Giver effort †p

−0.09

−.16

−0.10 0.03

−.17 .28∗

−0.09 0.02 0.51 0.21

−.16 .21∗ .55∗∗∗ .23∗

−4.02 0.02 −0.30 0.12 0.64 0.03

= .05. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

−7.38∗∗ .20∗ −.32 .13 .20∗∗ .30

Adj. R2

R2

F

df (Regression, total)

.01

—

1.38

(1, 56)

.07

.08

3.15†

(2, 56)

.49

.39

12.64∗∗∗

(4, 56)

.59

.10

11.89∗∗∗

(6, 56)

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

441

TABLE 7 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Giver Effort for Undesirable Gifts

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Outcome variable

Giver effort Model 1 undesirable gift Age Model 2 Age Empathy Model 3 Age Empathy Gratitude Gift liking Model 4 Age Empathy Gratitude Gift liking Age × Gratitude Age × Gift liking ∗∗ p

R2

F

df (Regression, total)

.01

—

1.56

(1, 56)

.03

.01

.96

(2, 56)

.41

.42

10.89∗∗∗

(4, 56)

.48

.03

7.81∗∗∗

(6, 56)

Model and predictor Unstandardized Standardized variable coefficient (B) coefficient (β) Adj. R2

0.24

0.17

0.24 0.03

0.16 0.08

0.04 −0.02 0.52 0.18

0.03 −0.07 0.53∗∗ 0.21

2.05 −0.02 0.51 0.69 −0.09 −0.29

1.40 −0.06 0.51 0.77 −0.40 −1.11

< .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

term and age was no longer a significant predictor. Empathy was approaching significance (p = .051) so the preceding results including the outlier should be interpreted with caution. The fifth and sixth regression analyses examined predictors for giver effort for both desirable and undesirable gifts. The details of these analyses are presented in Tables 7 and 8. As explained previously, the effort rating aimed to capture participants’ understanding of giver intention, or the thought that went into giving a gift. Participants were told to rate how hard they believed the giver tried to give the recipient a nice gift. Because none of the predictors, including the interaction terms in Model 4, were not significant for either the undesirable, F(6, 56) = 7.81, p < .001, or desirable, F(6, 56) = 1.51, p = .195; gifts, only the main effects from Model 3 are reported. Gratitude significantly predicted effort for undesirable gifts, F(4, 56) = 10.89, p < .001, and liking significantly predicted the effort for desirable gifts, although in this case the model itself was only approaching significance, F(4, 56) = 2.34, p = .068. Higher gratitude indicated higher effort ratings for the undesirable gifts and higher liking for the desirable gift indicated higher effort ratings.

DISCUSSION As previously discussed, both gratitude experiences and understanding are understudied, particularly in children. The psychology of gratitude has begun to attract researchers’ interest; however, research on gratitude with children is still scarce compared to studies with adolescents and adults.

442

POELKER & KUEBLI

TABLE 8 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Giver Effort for Desirable Gifts

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Outcome variable

Model and predictor Unstandardized Standardized variable coefficient (B) coefficient (β)

Giver effort Model 1 desirable gift Age Model 2 Age Empathy Model 3 Age Empathy Gratitude Gift liking Model 4 Age Empathy Gratitude Gift liking Age × Gratitude Age × Gift liking ∗p

−.10

−.18

−.11 .01

−.18 .11

−.07 .00 −.04 .41

−.11 −.11 −.04 .38∗

−.55 .001 −.11 .35 .06 .02

−.94 .01 −.11 .33 .64 .19

Adj. R2

R2

F

df (Regression, total)

.01

—

1.74

(1, 56)

.01

.01

1.18

(2, 56)

.15

.11

2.34

(4, 56)

.15

.001

1.51

(6, 56)

< .05.

The results of the present study with school-aged children, in general, suggested no gender differences and few age differences between the younger and older children in their ratings. Different patterns of significant predictors were found, however, for desirable and undesirable gifts. The desirable gift vignettes involving the well-fitting t-shirt, birthday cupcake, and a successful trip to the ice skating rink, which likely represented the more typical gift-giving scenario. Moreover, the desirable gift stories were the positive or preferred outcome in these gift-giving situations. The undesirable gifts included the ill-fitting sweatshirt, melted ice cream cone, and an unsuccessful trip to the closed bowling alley and were of particular interest here because it would seem more difficult for children to report high levels of gratitude, liking, and effort for gifts that are not desirable. Results indicated that higher likability ratings for the desirable gifts predicted higher levels of gratitude. The same pattern with liking and gratitude was found for undesirable gifts, although the Age by Liking interaction was significant, suggesting that liking was even more important for gratitude ratings for young children when the gift was not ideal. This association between gratitude and liking for younger children for undesirable gifts seems plausible conceptually, as younger children may be more influenced by the gift itself in a gratitude interaction (which involves interpersonal elements beyond the gift itself) due to their more limited perspective taking skills. The results from the study by Gordon et al. (2004) converge with this idea, as younger children were more likely than older children to report being grateful for material goods (this was trending toward significance), suggesting the material status of the gift may impact gratitude ratings more for younger children. For the younger participants it seems plausible that the status

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

443

of the gift itself may be linked to how grateful (or ungrateful) the child is for it. Open-ended follow-up questions would be useful to better understand the rational behind children’s ratings. This provides for support for the idea that gratitude encompasses something more than one’s feelings for the gift itself. Even though in the case of the melted ice cream cone, ill-fitting sweatshirt, and closed bowling alley the outcomes were negative, these results suggest that if children can find something they like about the undesirable gift, they are more likely to give higher gratitude ratings. This predictive pattern is particularly strong for younger children, highlighting the importance of the material gift itself when younger children reflect on the gratitude for the present. Although liking is important for older children, its reduced predictive role in older participant’s ratings for how grateful the target child in the vignette would be suggests that other factors were also contributing to older children’s ratings on behalf of the target. The conclusion is supported by the finding that older children, in general, produced higher gratitude ratings for undesirable gifts than did younger children. This suggests their ability to incorporate other factors like intention and effort into gratitude ratings and thereby reduce the focus on the status of the gift itself. The significant age by gratitude interaction (reported when including the outlier discussed previously) when predicting liking for desirable gifts showed that although higher gratitude predicted higher levels of liking for both age groups, this was particularly true for older children. The stronger relationship between older children’s gratitude ratings and gift liking shows gratitude is associated with enhanced liking of the gift, particularly for the ratings of older participants. The regression analyses do not allow for any causal conclusions, but it seems that for older children their target gratitude ratings may be comprised of other factors beyond their liking of the gift itself. As we have argued throughout, one of these additional factors may be giver intention or effort. Although the explanation for this finding is not entirely clear considering that these are feelings directed toward desirable gifts, perhaps for older children being more grateful helps them like the gift itself more. This may also be due to other differences in children with more grateful dispositions that may affect how they approach life in general (i.e., with a positive outlook). More research is certainly needed to substantiate this claim. Contrary to our theoretical framework, giver effort did not significantly predict liking or, more importantly, gratitude. Conceptually, ToM research (e.g., Wellman et al., 2001) along with Social Perspective Taking theory (Selman, 1980) would suggest, particularly for older children, that understanding and appreciating another’s perspective or intention is of particular importance. Brehl (2008) touched on a similar idea in her investigation of children’s understanding of accidental versus nonaccidental behavior, suggesting the consequences are different depending on the intentionality of the action. It was our aim for the question about effort to assess participants’ evaluation of the intentionality of the giver’s actions. These actions resulted in either desirable or undesirable gifts. However, the givers’ intentions or efforts were not explicitly stated in the vignettes. Because giver intention (as either good or bad) was not a designated independent variable in this study, intention was purposefully left as ambiguous. However, based on the results of the present study, future researchers may want to consider stating it clearly to ensure that participants are considering intention and effort when listening to the vignette. On a related note, liking significantly predicted giver effort for desirable gifts and gratitude for giver effort for undesirable gifts. The different predictor patterns for desirable versus undesirable gifts with respect to effort suggest different elements of the gift-giving interaction may become salient when the status of the gift changes. For example, perhaps because the gift itself was less

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

444

POELKER & KUEBLI

exciting in the undesirable condition, gratitude was linked to the effort because it encompasses something larger than the present itself, including the giver’s intention and attempt to give a nice gift despite the unfortunate outcome. On the other hand, liking (and not gratitude) could be associated with effort in desirable gift situations because the gift itself is pleasant and is of superior importance. A more deliberate inclusion of an element of intention or effort should be considered in future studies, as doing so would likely allow researchers to draw more specific conclusions about children’s understanding of intention in gratitude situations. In several ways, gratitude is perspective taking in action, applying the principles of ToM (e.g., Wellman et al., 2001) and social perspective taking (Selman, 1980) to a real-life situation. As suggested by the results of this study, in certain conditions, it is the thought that counts. As reported, older participants are more grateful for undesirable gifts than older children. In addition, when participants think the target is more grateful for a gift, they also rate the giver as trying harder to give the target a nice gift. In particular, this latter relationship, although not causal in nature, suggests a link between understanding the giver’s effort and how grateful one should feel for the gift. Also of importance for the present study, at Level 2 of Selman’s (1980) theory, children understand feeling contradictory emotions simultaneously (e.g., happy and scared). This aspect is particularly relevant here as it provides a potential rationale for the relationship between gratitude and ratings of giver effort for undesirable gifts. In other words, a participant’s ability to recognize the inconsistency in their emotions when they think about receiving an undesirable gift may suggest how they can still recognize giver effort and provide high gratitude ratings. For example, Timmy could be sad that the sweatshirt he was just given did not fit, but happy that his friend remembered his birthday and brought him a present. In addition, he is beginning to understand the implications of these contradictory emotions and understanding it is the thought that counts. This study is not without limitations. First, the sample was small and homogenous, including mostly wealthy, Catholic, and Caucasian children all attending private school. Although investigations of gratitude are still too few in number to permit more assertive claims, it seems likely that gratitude understanding and experiences could differ as a result of individuals’ culture, religion, socialization, or socioeconomic status. Future researchers should attempt to replicate the findings discussed here with a larger, more diverse sample and, similar to the present study, use vignettes that include both desirable and undesirable gifts. We relied on children’s vignette ratings in the present study to reduce linguistic demands on participants. However, given the limited variability we elicited in their ratings, future studies might benefit from using either open-ended or follow-up questions to glean more details from children about why they endorsed the ratings they did, especially considering the limited understanding of gratitude in children. For example, children in this study might have given overall high ratings because of their mastery of display rules associated with receiving gifts. To further explore this possibility, children in future studies could be asked about how the child in the vignette really feels about the gifts (both desirable and undesirable) distinguishing from what the socially acceptable response would be. Another noteworthy limitation is the low reliability of the empathy measure. Although the items were taken from two validated and well-established scales, the novel compilation of these particular items into a single measure was clearly problematic based on the low alpha value. Moreover, there was limited variability in the empathy scores as they were nearly at ceiling. This

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

445

lack of variability implies a restriction in range, which likely contributed to the poor reliability coefficient. The lack of significant findings in the present study with respect to empathy should not be taken as evidence that a relationship between empathy and other facets of the gratitude situation do not exist. It seems likely that the poor psychometric properties of the empathy measure used here may be masking potential relationships. As a result, empathy should be included in future investigations of gratitude using a different measure. Gratitude as a subject of research is still in its infancy in psychology and particularly in studies with children. The experience, understanding, and expression of gratitude deserve much more investigation by psychologists and others in order to better understand this phenomenon across the lifespan. Having a richer, more complete understanding of gratitude will help researchers to better understand why it is positively related to well being and other constructs. The results of the present study provide evidence for a relationship between children’s perceptions of effort or intention and gratitude levels suggesting that they recognize that the thought counts in giftgiving situations. The present study also showed that gratitude, at least in hypothetical scenarios, is related to how much one likes an undesirable gift. These findings have implications for gift giving and other similar social situations that children encounter and learn to negotiate throughout childhood and beyond.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Judith L. Gibbons, Natalie L. Homa, Kristin L. Kiddoo, Jillon Vander Wal, and Lisa Willoughby for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on this article, as well as Kim Bauer for creating the drawings used in this study.

AUTHOR NOTES Katelyn E. Poelker is a doctoral student at Saint Louis University studying child and adolescent socio-emotional development and the role of culture in these processes. Currently, she is working on qualitative investigations of gratitude and envy in U.S. and Guatemalan adolescents. Janet E. Kuebli is a developmental psychologist at Saint Louis University. Her research interests include children’s developing emotion knowledge and understanding, socialization of emotion, family discourse processes, and parent–child interactions during math and science learning.

REFERENCES Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413–425. doi:10.2307/1128984 Brehl, B. A. (2008). Maybe you didn’t mean to hurt me, but did you have a good reason? Children’s and adolescents’ reasoning about the harmful side effects of non-accidental behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(5B), 3294. Dadds, M. R., Hunter, K., Hawes, D. J., Frost, A. D. J., Vassallo, S., Bunn, P., . . . El Masry, Y. (2008). A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39, 111–122. doi:10.1007/s10578-007-0075-4

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

446

POELKER & KUEBLI

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial expressions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 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, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.84.2.377 Flavell, J. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15–23. doi:10.1080/016502500383421 Frederickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 145–166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Froh, J. J., Kashdan, T. B., Ozimkowski, K. M., & Miller, N. (2009). Who benefits the most from a positive affect intervention in children and adolescents? Examining positive affect as a moderator. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 408–422. doi:10.1080/17439760902992464 Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 213–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.03.005 Froh, J. J., Yurkewicz, C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Gratitude and subjective well-being in early adolescents: Examining gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.006 Gordon, A. K., Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Holub, S. C., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). What are children thankful for? An archival analysis of gratitude before and after the attacks of September 11. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 541–553. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.004 Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J. J. (2009). Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. Journal of Personality, 77, 691–730. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00562.x Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.24 Michaelson, L., & Lewis, M. (1985). What do children know about emotions and when do they know it? In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.), The socialization of emotions (pp. 117–140). New York, NY: Plenum. Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and happiness among young children: Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 323–341. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3648-6 Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York, NY: Academic Press. Shelton, C. M. (2004). Gratitude: Considerations from a moral perspective. In R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 259–281). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 655–684. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00304 Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957–973. doi:10.2307/1131873

DOES THE THOUGHT COUNT?

447

APPENDIX A Cupcake Vignette

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Today is Zach’s/Ally’s birthday. He/She is very excited. He/She cannot wait to celebrate. To help Zach/Ally celebrate, his/her friend from school came over to give him/her a birthday treat. When Zach/Ally opens the box he/she finds a “Happy Birthday” cupcake inside with icing and lots of sprinkles. Zach/Ally thanks his/her friend (Figure A1).

FIGURE A1

Cupcake.

448

POELKER & KUEBLI

APPENDIX B Ice Cream Cone Vignette

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 05 April 2015

Today is Drew’s/Nora’s birthday. He/She is very excited. He/She cannot wait to celebrate. To help Drew/Nora celebrate, his/her neighbor came over to give him/her a birthday treat. When Drew/Nora takes the ice cream cone out of the bag, he/she finds a melted cream cone (Figure A2). Drew/Nora thanks his/her friend.

FIGURE A2

Melted ice cream cone.