It’s good to do good and receive good: The impact of a ‘pay it forward’ style kindness intervention on giver and receiver well-being

Abstract

Despite the popularity of the ‘pay it forward’ (PIF) concept in textbooks and popular culture, to date, no study has tested the effectiveness of a brief, one-time PIF activity on the well-being of those who do good and those who receive good. To test this, 83 undergraduates (‘givers’) performed random kind acts for 1.5 h. PIF resulted in a wide range of well-being benefits for givers (e.g. greater positive and lower negative affect), with females showing greater positive affect benefits. Receivers of kindness (N = 1014) also benefited as evidenced by greater smiling behavior and more sincere smiles vs. controls (N = 251). Of the 48 receivers who completed a follow-up online questionnaire, the majority indicated that they would also PIF, with almost 40% indicating that they already had. Results indicate that a one-time brief PIF intervention can have broad benefits for those involved.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]
On: 20 October 2014, At: 12:35
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 Positive Psychology: Dedicated to
furthering research and promoting good practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
It’s good to do good and receive good: The impact of
a ‘pay it forward’ style kindness intervention on giver
and receiver well-being
Sarah D. Pressmana, Tara L. Kraftb & Marie P. Crossa
a Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, School of Social Ecology, University of
California, Irvine, 4201 Social & Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA 92697-7085, USA
b Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Fraser Hall, Room
426, Lawrence, KS 66045-7556, USA
Published online: 16 Oct 2014.
To cite this article: Sarah D. Pressman, Tara L. Kraft & Marie P. Cross (2014): It’s good to do good and receive good: The
impact of a ‘pay it forward’ style kindness intervention on giver and receiver well-being, The Journal of Positive Psychology:
Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2014.965269
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.965269
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 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

It’s good to do good and receive good: The impact of a ‘pay it forward’style kindness
intervention on giver and receiver well-being
Sarah D. Pressman
a
*, Tara L. Kraft
b
and Marie P. Cross
a
a
Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, 4201 Social &
Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA 92697-7085, USA;
b
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd.,
Fraser Hall, Room 426, Lawrence, KS 66045-7556, USA
(Received 30 April 2014; accepted 9 September 2014)
Despite the popularity of the ‘pay it forward’(PIF) concept in textbooks and popular culture, to date, no study has tested
the effectiveness of a brief, one-time PIF activity on the well-being of those who do good and those who receive good.
To test this, 83 undergraduates (‘givers’) performed random kind acts for 1.5 h. PIF resulted in a wide range of
well-being benefits for givers (e.g. greater positive and lower negative affect), with females showing greater positive
affect benefits. Receivers of kindness (N= 1014) also benefited as evidenced by greater smiling behavior and more
sincere smiles vs. controls (N= 251). Of the 48 receivers who completed a follow-up online questionnaire, the majority
indicated that they would also PIF, with almost 40% indicating that they already had. Results indicate that a one-time
brief PIF intervention can have broad benefits for those involved.
Keywords: pay it forward; acts of kindness; positive psychology; well-being; altruism; positive affect; negative affect
Remember there’s no such thing as a small act of kind-
ness. –Scott Adams
It is well established that doing good is, in fact, good for
you. Numerous studies have documented the many psy-
chological and physical benefits that can result from
engaging in kind and altruistic behavior. For example,
naturally occurring altruism and volunteering behavior
have been related to increased life satisfaction, decreased
depression, lower blood pressure, and even increased
longevity (Burr, Tavares, & Mutchler, 2011; Dulin,
Gavala, Stephens, Kostick, & McDonald, 2012;
Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005; Musick & Wilson,
2003; Post, 2005; Wheeler, Gorey, & Greenblatt, 1998;
Windsor, Anstey, & Rodgers, 2008). While the breadth
of findings is impressive, concern remains that those
who self-select into volunteering may somehow be dif-
ferent than those who choose not to volunteer. Indeed,
research has shown that individuals who report higher
levels of happiness also report more interest in helping
others (Feingold, 1983) and greater intention to perform
kind or altruistic acts at work (Williams & Shiaw, 1999).
This makes it unclear whether altruism-related benefits
could still be experienced when helping other people is
obligatory, as is the case in many positive psychology
interventions. Because most altruism benefits have been
studied in naturalistic settings and on people who choose
to spend their time behaving prosocially (e.g. Oman,
Thoresen, & McMahon, 1999; Rietschlin, 1998; Wilson
& Musick, 1999), more research is needed on whether
‘forced kindness,’where individuals are required to help
others regardless of autonomous motivation, elicits
similar well-being benefits.
Weinstein and Ryan (2010) have specifically argued
that autonomous motivation of the volunteer is necessary
for both the giver and receiver of the good deed to expe-
rience well-being benefits. This may be because the qual-
ity of help and the effort put into helping from
autonomously motivated people is greater, which posi-
tively affects the relationship between the giver and the
receiver. Other researchers (Deci & Ryan, 1985;Nix,
Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999) have suggested that when
people volunteer for external reasons (e.g. being
convinced by others to do so or when forced), they lose
the sense of personal competence otherwise associated
with autonomously motivated kind acts and, therefore,
many of the benefits. One study even found that extrin-
sic motives for volunteering were associated with
decreased volunteer satisfaction (Finkelstein, Penner, &
Brannick, 2005). In addition, the feeling of connection
that often appears between the givers and receivers of
help is diminished if autonomous motivation is not
present on the side of the giver (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Nix et al., 1999).
Despite these concerns over non-autonomously moti-
vated kindness, positive psychology interventions have
successfully manipulated prosocial behavior experimen-
tally, resulting in multiple well-being benefits (Seligman,
2003). This is typically done via interventions where
*Corresponding author. Email: pressman@uci.edu
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.965269
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

individuals perform random acts of kindness (RAK),
often over the course of several weeks. For example, in
one study, participants who engaged in 10 weeks of
RAKs reported higher happiness and subjective well-
being and lower negative affect (NA) at a one-month
follow-up as compared to controls who did not partici-
pate in RAKs (Tkach, 2006). Alden and Trew (2013)
also found that people with high social anxiety who
engaged in kind acts for four weeks sustained higher PA
over the course of the study vs. controls. Forced kind-
ness has also been shown to effectively increase student
happiness and subjective well-being. For example,
students who performed five acts of kindness one day
per week showed a significant increase in well-being
over a six-week period compared with a control group
(Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005; Lyubomirsky,
Tkach, & Sheldon, 2004). Similarly, preadolescent
students who performed three acts of kindness every
week for four weeks experienced greater peer acceptance
(Layous, Nelson, Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Lyubomirsky,
2012). These types of findings have also been echoed
cross-culturally, suggesting some universal benefits of
kindness interventions (e.g. Layous, Lee, Choi, &
Lyubomirsky, 2013; Otake, Shimai, Tanaka-Matsumi,
Otsui, & Fredrickson, 2006). For example, one study
conducted in the United States and South Korea found
that participants from both cultures increased in well-
being when performing kind acts over a few weeks
(Layous et al., 2013).
As is evident from the above examples, most of these
studies require multiple weeks of effort and kindness
behavior. This leaves open an important question: Do
very brief kindness activities (e.g. a single day, a few
minutes) have benefits? To date, only a few studies have
examined this. While not ‘forced’kindness, two early
studies found that participants who were asked by a con-
federate for help on a single occasion reported greater
positive mood than those who were not given the oppor-
tunity to help (Harris, 1977; Williamson & Clark, 1989).
A more relevant study investigated whether a specific
and mandated act of prosocial behavior on a single day
would increase mood. This study determined that partici-
pants who were randomly assigned to spend $5 or $20
on others were happier at the end of the day than those
who spent the same amount of money on themselves
(Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008). While the evidence
available is narrow, these studies suggest that some
specific acts of help, even short-lived ones, may have
benefits for the giver of the good deed.
Relevant here is that one of the most popular con-
cepts in the area of kindness interventions (e.g. in the
media and positive psychology instruction) is completing
a random act of kindness via a ‘pay it forward’(PIF)
activity, often over one day or during a single interac-
tion. PIF encompasses the idea that receivers of good
deeds can repay altruistic behavior by helping others
instead of directly reciprocating to the original giver of
the act. PIF activities ask individuals to complete an act
of kindness and then to encourage the recipients to con-
tinue the chain of kindness. The PIF concept dates back
to the 317 BC play Dyskolos, in which one of the main
characters says everyone has a responsibility to ‘make
rich as many people as you can by your own efforts’
(807–808). More recently, the concept was popularized
in a movie of the same name (Abrams & Leder, 2000;
Ryan-Hyde, 1999). To our knowledge, the broadly
advertised single-day/brief PIF activity has yet to be
empirically examined, despite massive campaigns (Pay It
Forward Foundation, 2013) and broad public endorse-
ment. For example, this year alone, over 800,000 indi-
viduals have posted a PIF-style promise on their
Facebook profiles (Meyer, 2014). Thus, while the theory
behind PIF is popular, no study has tested whether a
one-time ‘forced altruism’PIF activity (like that exe-
cuted on ‘Pay it Forward Day’) increases well-being in
the giver and/or whether the good deeds are spread.
While there are related longer-lasting kindness studies,
and a handful of studies of brief events of kindness, it is
clear that there are notable gaps in the literature. This
study will test whether utilizing the PIF concept specifi-
cally results in benefits to the givers of kindness despite
the short period of execution and the lack of autonomous
motivation.
Another noted hole in past kindness studies is that
the receiver of kindness is frequently ignored. Although
the benefits of doing good on the actor are well docu-
mented in volunteer studies and in the RAK activities
discussed above, the benefits for the receiver are less
consistent and/or less documented. There are reasons to
believe that kind acts may not always be beneficial for
receivers. For example, while receiving support has been
shown to increase feelings of competence, social connec-
tion, and closeness (Gleason, Iida, Bolger, & Shrout,
2003; Gore, 1981), researchers have discovered that it
can also challenge an individual’s sense of self-esteem
and autonomy (Ryan & Solky, 1996) and lead to nega-
tive self-attributions (Newsom, 1999) as well as feelings
of sadness and anxiety (Maisel & Gable, 2009). Correla-
tional designs in some of these studies leave open the
possibility that NA can elicit received support; however,
it also a real possibility that getting help can have draw-
backs. Despite this, it should be noted that support
figures in these studies are typically close family and
friends. The support in PIF is qualitatively different
because it is not necessarily being provided in response
to stress or NA and it is typically coming from a stran-
ger. Therefore, it is plausible that participants in PIF
style kindness activities will not suffer the same negative
impacts due to reduced threat to their self-esteem and/or
a lack of guilt about the support they are receiving.
2S.D. Pressman et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

To this end, hospital-based and home-based visitor
programs where kindness is provided by volunteers
unknown to the recipient are popular, and studies have
reported a wealth of related benefits such as lower medi-
cation use, increased happiness and vigor, and increased
cognitive functioning (Reinke, Holmes, & Denney, 1981;
Schulz, 1976; Wheeler et al., 1998). Also unique to PIF
is the possibility that individuals can help someone else
in return, potentially ameliorating the negative effects
described above. With these factors in play (i.e. kindness
from strangers and the ability to ‘pay it back’to help
others), receivers of PIF kindness should show
well-being benefits from the PIF activity.
The primary goals of the current study were to first,
determine the psychological impact of a one-time, brief
PIF style intervention on the individuals who ‘do good’
for others (i.e. the givers) and second, to assess the bene-
fits of being on the receiving end of this activity (i.e. the
receivers). We hypothesized that the intervention would
increase levels of positive affect (PA) and reduce NA for
the givers. Because of the nature of this type of interven-
tion, baseline levels of affective state could not be col-
lected for receivers since they are picked naturally in the
moment, and asking them to fill out a survey would dis-
rupt the flow of the interaction. Therefore, in order to
assess PA benefits to receivers, we assessed whether
community members interacting with the group were
more likely to smile (and smile to a greater degree) as
compared to the control participants who did not interact
with the PIF group. While different from self-reported
PA, smiling has long been shown to communicate
pleasurable experiences (Messinger, Cassel, Acosta,
Ambadar, & Cohn, 2008). While smiles can be artificial
(i.e. not indicating positive affect), researchers have
identified Duchenne smiles (with both cheek and eye
muscle activity; Duchenne, 1862/1990) as markers of
sincere positive emotion (Ekman, Davidson, & Friesen,
1990; Ekman & Friesen, 1982).
Because of the novelty of the PIF paradigm in
research, additional exploratory analyses were conducted
in order to gain insight into various aspects of the inter-
vention, including an examination of whether existing
characteristics of participants (e.g. demographics, affect)
correlated with the efficacy of the activity. Finally, we
examined whether individuals who were on the receiving
end of the activity actually intended to do a good deed
for someone else, and whether those who had engaged
in a good deed experienced higher well-being. Although
our intervention is more similar to a brief RAK interven-
tion (because the givers are at the beginning of the PIF
chain of good deeds), this final investigation allowed us
to determine whether this chain had been successfully
initiated and/or whether receivers of good deeds felt
compelled to PIF themselves.
Method
Two separate groups were of interest throughout the
current study: the givers (those delivering the PIF
activity) and the receivers (those receiving kind acts from
the givers). Because of this, methods and results will be
split to display the results for these groups separately.
Participants
Participants in the giver group were 83 individuals
enrolled in a positive psychology course at a large
Midwestern University (59% female, 87.5% Caucasian,
aged 19–56 years with a mean age of 22.6). Participants
consented to participate in research over the course of the
semester in the first week of classes (study was approved
by the University of Kansas Human Subjects committee).
Participants were randomized into 10 giver PIF groups
that roamed the university campus and the broader
Lawrence, Kansas, community for approximately 90 min.
The receiver group included any individual (e.g. com-
munity member, faculty, student, staff) who happened to
be close in proximity to one of the PIF groups. This
included 1014 individuals who were recipients of the PIF
activity and 251 individuals utilized as control subjects
(e.g. individuals who were not part of the activity because
of distance or because they were encountered after the
activity was complete). All individuals in the recipient
group had their faces coded by students trained to identify
Duchenne and non-Duchenne smiles. Self-reported demo-
graphic information on receivers was not collected given
our desire not to interfere with the natural flow of the
interactions, in addition to the large number of receivers
as compared to coders and the brief time span. A small
subsample of receivers (N= 48) voluntarily completed an
online self-report questionnaire shortly after the activity to
examine whether they engaged in PIF themselves and to
report on their mood state.
Measures
Givers: pre-post intervention measures
Mood (state affect) change due to PIF activity in the
givers was tested via a pre-post measurement of the
20-item state PANAS assessment (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988), as well as the PANAS-X joviality scale
(Watson & Clark, 1994). Both measures have been
shown to be reliable and valid in measuring positive and
negative affect (Crawford & Henry, 2004; Watson,
1988). Items relating to other positive constructs were
drawn from dispositional scales and reworded to ask
about how they felt over the last day, including gratitude
(assessed with gratitude scale items ‘grateful’and ‘thank-
ful’) (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002), optimism
(assessed with items ‘hopeful’and ‘optimistic’) (Scheier,
The Journal of Positive Psychology 3
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

Carver, & Bridges, 1994), and ‘satisfied with my life’
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Items were
all ranked on a 0–4 scale, where 0 indicated very slightly
or not at all and 4 indicated extremely. This pretest was
administered to givers one week before the PIF interven-
tion. The posttest was available one day after the inter-
vention and was completed by the last participant four
days post-activity.
Givers: pre-intervention disposition
In addition to these pre-post intervention measures, par-
ticipants also completed a number of questionnaires three
months before the activity. These were used to determine
whether baseline characteristics would alter the experi-
ence of the PIF activity. Satisfaction with life was mea-
sured using the five-item Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Diener et al., 1985). Example items included, ‘The con-
ditions of my life are excellent’and ‘In most ways my
life is close to my ideal.’Gratitude was measured using
the six-item Gratitude Questionnaire (McCullough et al.,
2002), which included items like ‘I have so much to be
grateful for’and ‘If I had to list everything that I felt
grateful for, it would be a very long list.’Optimism was
measured using the 10-item Life Orientation Test-
Revised (Scheier et al., 1994). Example items included ‘I
am always optimistic about my future’and ‘In uncertain
times, I usually expect the best.’Trait affect was mea-
sured using a 19-item scale drawn from the Larsen and
Diener Circumplex model (Larsen & Diener, 1992).
Responses for this scale ranged from 0 to 4, with 0 indi-
cating that the item was not at all accurate and 4 indicat-
ing that the item was extremely accurate in describing
how the participant felt generally. Adjectives assessed a
range of positive (calm, happy, enthusiastic) and negative
(tired, nervous, sad) emotions. Three additional items
were also added to measure general stress and boredom
(overwhelmed, stressed, and bored; see Miller et al.,
2004).
Givers also self-reported demographic variables
including age, sex, and race.
Receivers: smiling
A set of giver participants were responsible for coding
facial expressions of receivers and controls. Coders were
trained via photographic displays and in-class instruction
on how to recognize the Duchenne smile (Duchenne,
1862/1990; Ekman & Friesen, 1982) via identification of
activity in both the zygomaticus major muscles (cheek)
and the orbicularis oculi muscles (adjoining the eye).
Non-Duchenne smiles (zygomaticus major activity only)
were coded as ‘standard’smiles, and all other expressions
(negative, neutral) were coded as ‘no smile.’Smiling
behaviors were rated on a scale of 1–3 according to
degree of smile (3-Duchenne smile, 2-non-Duchenne
smile, 1-neutral/negative expression).
Receivers: self-reported effects of PIF
Participants were asked how likely they were to pay the
good deed forward on a scale from 1 to 7, 1 signifying
‘very unlikely’and 7 signifying ‘very likely.’Partici-
pants were asked whether or not they had already paid
the good deed forward, and, if so, to describe how they
did so.
Participants also reported current mood via a subset
of items drawn from the emotion scales discussed above
for givers. Positive emotion items included happiness,
cheerfulness, pride, excitement, thankfulness, and opti-
mism, and negative emotion items included anger,
stress, sadness, nervousness, and loneliness. The same
Likert scale described above for givers’was utilized.
Positive emotion scores were averaged to calculate a
positive mood recipient response, and negative emotion
scores were averaged to calculate a negative mood
response.
Procedure
One week prior to participating in the PIF event, givers
completed baseline mood questionnaires (demographics
and trait measures were assessed three months pre-activ-
ity). The day of the PIF activity, givers participated in
90 min of activities. Groups of givers were provided with
a geographic target area (e.g. inside office buildings, caf-
eterias, areas of campus), instructions, smiling scoring
sheets, and an array of suggested kind behaviors (e.g.
hold a door open, offer to help someone carry some-
thing, give a compliment, feed a parking meter, high five
someone, pick something up for someone), as well as
gifts to give to individuals as they interacted with them
(e.g. chocolate, cookies, positive message cards, gifts,
and certificates donated by local merchants). Givers were
instructed to engage with and facially code whomever
they encountered. Whenever possible, recipients were
also informed of the PIF concept. Each giving group had
two individuals coding smiles of those who did and did
not participate in PIF.
Following PIF interactions, a small subset of receiv-
ers (at random) were offered a card containing a website
directing them to a survey about their experience with
PIF. Those who chose to complete the survey answered
questions anonymously about their current emotional
state and whether they ‘paid it forward’by doing a good
deed. The survey was optional and participants were
offered the possibility of winning a $25 gift certificate if
they provided their email address. Givers and receivers
(given the survey card) were asked to complete the
follow-up surveys within 24 h.
4S.D. Pressman et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

Facial coders were instructed to code ‘control’
participants both during PIF (e.g. if there were individu-
als on the other side of the street whose faces they could
see but who could not interact with the PIF group) and
after the PIF activity when good deeds were no longer
being completed. Participants had between a 10 and 30
min walk back to the meeting location to return materi-
als; thus, the majority of facial coding occurred once the
PIF activity was over, as individuals could easily code
faces on the way back to the larger group.
Statistical approach
Within-subjects t-tests were conducted for pre-interven-
tion and post-intervention data. Because not all givers
completed their follow-up surveys immediately following
the activity, an ANOVA was conducted to determine
whether amount of time post-intervention that the survey
was completed was correlated with mood change score
differences. Pearson correlation coefficient tests were
conducted to examine whether baseline traits were corre-
lated with the change scores resulting from the PIF activ-
ity (pre-post difference scores). ANOVA was utilized for
bivariate variables and group difference tests (e.g. for
facial expression comparisons across receivers and
controls). Partial correlations and ANCOVAs were
utilized when covariates were necessary.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Givers
Seventy-eight participants completed both the pre- and
post-data and were considered in mood change analyses.
Five individuals were lost due to absence on the day of
the activity or missing surveys. The largest portion of
Time 2 data was collected within 24 h of the event
(43%), with the last student completing the questionnaire
four days after the event. Amount of time post-interven-
tion that the survey was completed was generally not
correlated with mood change score differences; however,
an ANOVA revealed that joviality (PANAS-X subscale)
was significantly higher for those who completed the
response within 24 h of the activity (F(1,78) = 4.84,
p< 0.05), with a 1.12 unit increase in the within 24 h
group and a 0.75 unit increase in the late group (over
24 h post-intervention). This reveals that the effects of
the activity deteriorated over time, but were still present
several days after the intervention.
Receivers
The PIF givers coded 1265 individuals for facial
expression, with approximately 175 of these participants
receiving cards with the website for a self-report survey
(500 cards were given to the givers to hand out at
random and 325 were returned). Participation in the
online survey was voluntary. The website link was
simply provided on the back of a card to random com-
munity members who interacted with the group, along
with a positive or complimentary saying on the front.
Forty-eight participants completed the online survey,
making the response rate approximately 27%. Of these
participants, 83% completed the questionnaire on the
same day as the PIF event. The last entry was approxi-
mately 48 h after the event.
Was the PIF intervention effective?
Givers
Positive and negative state affect. All mood change
results tested via pre-post paired sample t-tests were
significant and in the anticipated directions. Participating
in PIF resulted in decreases in NA (t(78) = −4.53,
p< 0.001; d= 0.38) and increases in PA (t(78) = 8.40,
p< 0.001; d= 0.90), optimism (t(78) = 6.33, p< 0.001;
d= 0.67), gratitude (t(78) = 3.15, p< 0.001; d= 0.32),
life satisfaction (t(78) = 3.80, p< 0.001; d= 0.36), and
joviality (t(78) = 10.47, p< 0.001; d= 1.13). Mean dif-
ference scores (Time 2 −Time 1) can be seen in Figure 1,
with the largest difference found in PANAS joviality and
the smallest in overall NA.
While all mean changes across the group were in the
expected directions, not all participants had the expected
direction of change. For example, optimism and gratitude
change scores had a range of −2to+3,PA−2to+2,
life satisfaction −1 to + 2, NA −1.8 to + 0.8, and jovial-
ity −1 to + 3. This indicates differences in activity effec-
tiveness, with some givers showing negative effects from
the activity. However, these differences represented a
small percentage of the overall sample: only 2.5% of
givers showed a decrease in joviality, 5.1% in PA,
Figure 1. The magnitude of the mean change scores in
affect, optimism, and life satisfaction following PIF for givers
(+/−SE). Scores are calculated as Time 2 −Time 1.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 5
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

10.1% in hope, 11.4% in life satisfaction, and the largest
percentage (20.3%) showed a decrease in gratitude.
10.1% of givers showed an increase in NA after the PIF
activity.
Demographic and baseline differences in PIF effects.
Sex was associated with changes in the PANAS PA and
the PANAS joviality scales (Fs(1,67) = 11.08 and 9.15,
respectively, ps < 0.01), with females having larger PA
increases in response to the activity. This difference
persisted after controlling for post-intervention (T2) lag
measurement (how many days late T2 was; both
ps < 0.01) in an ANCOVA. Other change scores were in
the same direction (with females reporting greater bene-
fits), but nonsignificant. Race and age were not associ-
ated with mood outcomes; however, there was little
variance in these demographic measures (over 85%
white, 87.5% aged 25 and under).
Partial correlations controlling for sex were used to
examine baseline psychological traits as possible corre-
lates of the change effects of PIF. Generally, baseline
traits did not predict PIF-related change scores, with a
few exceptions. Higher baseline optimism and stress
were both correlated with greater increases in optimism
during PIF (r= 0.37, p< 0.01 and r= 0.27, p= 0.05,
respectively). Greater NA at baseline was associated
with greater increases in joviality following PIF
(r= 0.31, p< 0.05). Controlling additionally for T2
survey lag time for the NA analysis (given the known
association with joviality) did not substantially alter this
association (new r= 0.30, p< 0.05).
Receivers
Smiling. Individuals who interacted with the PIF group
(N= 1014) showed significantly greater smiling expres-
sions than those who did not interact with the group
(N= 251) (F(1,1263) = 246.16, p< 0.001) (Figure 2). Of
the controls, 59% were not smiling vs. only 15.1% in
the PIF receiver group. Similarly, only 14.3% of controls
had Duchenne smiles vs. 51.3% of those who interacted
with the PIF group.
Did the receivers PIF?
Online survey participants were also asked how likely
they were to PIF on a 1 (will not PIF) to 7 (definitely
will PIF) scale. The mean was 6.35 for respondents, and
all but one participant (who answered with a 1) rated a 5
or above on this scale. Of these, 38.5% had already paid
it forward at the time of the questionnaire. These acts
ranged from picking up books for someone, telling a
stranger to have a wonderful day, smiling at strangers,
holding doors open, giving away or sharing food, com-
plimenting others, hugging others, giving up a seat on
the bus, helping someone with work or homework, and
donating blood.
Self-reported psychological impacts. Receivers who
completed the PIF online survey had a positive mood
mean of 3.22 on a 0–4 scale (SD = 0.52, range = 1.7–4)
and a negative mood mean of 0.98 on a 0–4 scale
(SD = 0.73, range = 0–2.2).When examining differences
between those who had already engaged in a kind deed
vs. those who had not yet done so, there was no overall
difference in PA or NA, although there were nonsignifi-
cant trends in specifictypes of emotions. Individuals
who had already engaged in a kind act trended toward
more excitement (F(1,45) = 3.89, p= 0.05), more
happiness (F(1,45) = 3.3, p= 0.08), and less anger
(F(1,45) = 3.318, p= 0.08).
Discussion
This study is the first to show that a one-time, brief PIF
style intervention can positively impact the well-being of
both givers and receivers of the activity in the days
immediately following the experience. For both groups,
the intervention most effectively increased positive con-
structs but also had some benefits in decreasing negative
affectivity. PIF givers reported increased overall PA,
optimism, gratitude, life satisfaction, and joviality, with
the largest changes found in PA and joviality. This is not
surprising given that state affect is likely easier to
manipulate via a short activity as compared to more
Figure 2. Average smiling differences (+/−SE) between indi-
viduals who interacted with the PIF group (intervention) vs.
those who did not (control). Smiles were coded so that 1 indi-
cates no smile, 2 indicates a standard [non-Duchenne] smile,
and 3 indicates a Duchenne smile.
6S.D. Pressman et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

stable factors such as life satisfaction or optimism. These
findings contradict previous research that has indicated
that autonomous motivation is necessary for psychologi-
cal benefits for both givers and recipients of help, as the
PIF activity was a forced kindness intervention. Partici-
pation was assigned as a class activity and givers were
not permitted to miss it except for illness or emergency.
These findings also add on to past studies showing bene-
fits of extended periods of kind activities (e.g. Layous
et al., 2012; Lyubomirsky et al., 2004; Lyubomirsky,
Sheldon, et al., 2005) by showing that even brief activi-
ties can alter well-being up to a couple of days later. It
also adds to the small literature showing that brief
prosocial acts can also have mood benefits for the
giver (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008; Harris, 1977;
Williamson & Clark, 1989), and is the first to document
receiver benefits in this context.
Although the widespread commercial popularity of
the PIF concept led to strong hypotheses that a PIF inter-
vention would lead to positive outcomes, less certainty
remained about whether PIF would be effective for
everyone. While there were ranges of responses to the
activity from the givers, demographic factors such as age
and ethnicity were not connected with self-reported
mood change. The only demographic factor that made a
significant difference for the givers was sex, with
females reporting higher increases in PA and joviality
than males. It may be that females benefit more, but
more likely this is an example of emotional reporting
differences and affect intensity differences frequently
found in the psychological literature (e.g. Fujita, Diener
& Sandvik, 1991; Kring & Gordon, 1998). Similarly,
baseline trait affect did not predict major PIF effects,
with the exceptions of baseline optimism (which pre-
dicted higher increases in optimism/hope), baseline stress
(which also predicted greater increases in optimism/
hope), and negative affect (which predicted higher levels
of joviality after the activity). This suggests that those
with more negative affect and stress might especially
benefit from a PIF activity. Alternatively, this could also
be partially due to ceiling effects since these high NA
individuals have more room to change in their
well-being scores.
When considering the small percentage of people
who experienced negative effects from PIF (2.5–20.3%
depending on the outcome), it remains unclear as to who
these individuals are. Qualitative descriptions of the
experience not described in the results suggest that some
of those who did not like the intervention were more
introverted and shy (e.g. ‘I am kind of shy, so putting
myself out there like that was uncomfortable’and ‘I was
really nervous for the activity, I usually do not like walk-
ing up and starting conversations with random people’)
or did not like that some individuals were unresponsive
to them (e.g. ‘It made me a little sad that people were so
unresponsive’). Given these types of descriptions, it is
possible that introversion or other social relationship
relevant factors might predict the effectiveness of this
type of activity. Future research should include these
types of variables.
Social activity may be an important mediating factor
of the positive effects of the PIF intervention on both
givers and receivers. All individuals engaged in the PIF
intervention as part of a group, and the activity involved
doing something prosocial for another person. The ‘other
people matter’effect (Peterson, 2006) is well established
in the health and well-being literature, with social con-
nections being tied to increased longevity, increased
physical health, increased cognitive performance, and
better mental health (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton,
2010; House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Robles,
Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014). Thus, testing this
as an individual activity or having individuals ‘do good’
online, where feelings of social connectedness may be
reduced, would be interesting follow-ups.
Recipients also benefited from the intervention. They
showed greater levels of Duchenne smiles (51.3%
receivers vs. 14.3% controls) and very few non-smiles
(15.1% receivers vs. 59% controls), providing behavioral
evidence that this activity was sincerely enjoyable and
pleasant for recipients. While self-report data days later
may have been a better indicator of the lasting effects of
this activity, it is clear that in the moment, the majority
of individuals who received kindness from the PIF activ-
ity sincerely enjoyed it, as evidenced by only a small
percentage of individuals not showing Duchenne or stan-
dard smiles in response to the interaction. A subset of
receivers reported their affect in the day(s) following the
PIF event and revealed very high means for positive
mood and low means for negative mood. While there is
no control group or baseline data for this sample, means
on the same scales were retrieved from a University of
Kansas Health Psychology course (N= 48) a few weeks
after the PIF activity (during a non-examination week)
as a comparison point (not reported in results). Indeed,
mean positive mood for this non-PIF group was signifi-
cantly lower than the receivers of the PIF activity (mean
of 2.6 vs. 3.2 on a 0–4 scale, F(1,96) = 5.12, p< 0.05).
While not a perfect control group, this does indicate that
the recipients of the PIF activity were generally feeling
quite positive. Thus, unlike some studies of received
social support, when an individual receives help or kind-
ness in the context of PIF, the receiver responds posi-
tively as evidenced by positive emotional expression
and, to some extent, in self-reports of mood. Future
studies should explore the mechanisms underlying these
benefits as compared to studies of support (e.g. Is self-
esteem maintained? Is this due to it being a stranger or
because of the ability to PIF to someone else in need?),
and should explore the mood benefits more explicitly.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 7
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

Although results reveal that PIF was effective for
both the givers and receivers, there were a number of
limitations. First, givers were not blind to the hypothesis
that PIF should increase well-being. Most positive
psychology interventions face this limitation because it is
difficult to mask hypotheses when mood is being overtly
manipulated. That being said, givers were told repeatedly
that not all positive psychological interventions work for
everyone, and, accordingly, some givers reported
decreases in PA and increases in NA. Furthermore,
givers took the state affect pretest one week before the
PIF activity, so it is unlikely that they remembered their
initial reported affect levels. Next, because givers rated
facial expressions, it is possible that demand characteris-
tics played a role in their ratings of receivers. That being
said, student participants were extensively trained in sci-
entific research methodology as part of the course con-
tent, and this was not their first research project or their
first experience with facial coding. Another potential
concern is that those who elected to participate as receiv-
ers were inherently different from those who did not
interact with the PIF group. Instructing givers to interact
with and code every encountered individual minimized
this limitation. This included those who quickly walked
by (e.g. grabbed a cookie and kept going, read a ‘free
hug’sign and declined) as well as those who interacted
for longer periods. It also encompassed interactions with
individuals who had no choice but to be PIF receivers
(e.g. individuals in offices who were visited) because
they were in a room that was coded in its entirety.
Another concern may be that students in a positive
psychology class (i.e. the giver sample) may not be
representative of the broader general population. Most
notably, although these students were ‘forced’to take
part in this intervention, they may not have truly felt
forced because of the voluntary nature of their decision
to sign up for the class and their previous interest in the
subject matter. This may limit the generalizability of
these results; however, this volunteer bias is similar to
that of any participant who signs up voluntarily for any
research study. Future studies should include a measure
of person-activity fit to assess the degree to which partic-
ipants are truly ‘forced’to participate in the intervention
and attempt to recruit givers of PIF by other means.
Finally, demand characteristics may have also played a
role in our giver results. To prevent this, we encouraged
honesty and maintained anonymity via online anonymous
surveys. We also emphasized that not everyone would
necessarily benefit from this activity; however, it is still
possible that demand played some role in study results.
Another limitation of this study is the lack of ideal
control groups. For the receivers, facial expression cod-
ers did their best to code faces from individuals who
were unaffected by the intervention (e.g. those who were
not near a kindness interaction, individuals who were
encountered after the activity was complete), and most
control data were recorded after the intervention was
over. However, there may still have been some spillover
effects as compared to if data had been collected on a
random day when no PIF activities were happening. In
the future, raters who are blind to hypotheses should
walk around before and after the intervention and code
natural facial expressions, and, ideally, receivers would
be video recorded so blinded raters could more
accurately rate expressions. For givers, baseline control
comparison data were collected ahead of time (one week
pre-PIF); however, a comparison group of participants
doing pre-post mood assessments before a walk around
campus would also be useful. Because of the lack of a
control group, results may be due to alternative explana-
tions. For example, givers may have received a mood
boost due to the novelty of walking around campus with
their friends and participating in an activity other than
sitting in a lecture hall. We should note here, however,
that givers had participated in eight other positive psy-
chology interventions over the course of the semester,
including others that involved outdoor group activities.
PIF was one of the last activities they participated in;
therefore, it is unlikely that these findings are due to a
uniqueness-related mood boost. Unfortunately, due to the
nature of this activity (e.g. as a classroom-based
intervention over a single brief time period) and the
desire to keep the interactions natural, it was not possible
to remedy these specific concerns.
Although PIF aims to create a chain of good deeds,
this also could not be perfectly tested due to constraints
of the study design. There was a low survey self-report
response rate (under 30%), partially due to our desire to
not alter the altruistic nature and flow of the interaction.
Individuals were not pressured to visit the website, and
given that university samples are already bombarded
with survey requests, the low response rate was not sur-
prising. This did hinder our ability to adequately assess
whether individuals completed a good deed at a later
point in time. It is possible that individuals who com-
pleted the survey benefitted the most from the interven-
tion, although we attempted to minimize this issue by
incentivizing people to take the survey with the
possibility of winning a small prize (e.g. gift certificates).
Of the recipients who responded to the online survey,
almost 40% reported paying a good deed forward at the
time of the survey (up to 48 h post-intervention), and
nearly all respondents reported that they intended to
complete a good deed (54.2% of the sample said they
would definitely PIF, and the mean for likelihood of
doing it in the future was 6.35 on a seven-point likeli-
hood scale). This may provide one explanation for why
we did not see large self-reported mood differences
between people who had already paid it forward at the
time of the survey and people who had not yet done so.
8S.D. Pressman et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

The people who had not yet paid it forward may have
already been planning and envisioning the good deeds
they would do, which may have increased their PA even
though they had yet to take action. Furthermore, recipi-
ents of the intervention already had high levels of PA, so
a ceiling effect may have been present. Because of the
nature of the study, brief and short survey items were
necessary, including some that were not previously vali-
dated in this format (although all items had been used in
previous scales and adjectives hung well together based
on a factor analysis of the items).
Because this study is the first of its kind, there are
many directions for future research to take. Although
both the givers and receivers experienced benefits from
the PIF activity, our study did not address why these
benefits occurred and for how long. Future research
should examine the psychological processes that lead to
these outcomes, the specific types of ‘good deed’
activities responsible for the found results, the duration
of the effects, and whether specific types of people will
benefit most (or not benefit) from this activity.
Overall, our brief PIF activity was successful,
providing benefits to both the givers and receivers of the
intervention, regardless of individual differences in demo-
graphic variables or baseline traits. Individuals reported
qualitatively that it was ‘fun,’‘inspirational,’‘mood
lifting,’and ‘life changing.’Furthermore, technology is
making it easier to promote and complete PIF activities
through mobile apps designed to promote acts of kindness
and track good deeds as they are spread forward (i.e. Ripil;
Mobileaze LLC, 2014). With mobile apps such as these, it
may become easier to test the ‘ultimate’PIF intervention,
which includes the ability to track whether the good deeds
are paid forward and how far the chain of kindness
reaches. Given that this activity was inexpensive to
execute, lasted less than two hours, was easy to implement,
and was broadly beneficial, future researchers and interven-
tionists should encourage individuals to continue to use
this type of activity for positive emotion enhancement.
References
Abrams, P. (Producer), & Leder, M. (Director). (2000). Pay it
Forward [Motion Picture]. USA: Warner Bros.
Alden, L. E., & Trew, J. L. (2013). If it makes you happy:
Engaging in kind acts increases positive affect in socially
anxious individuals. Emotion, 13,64–75.
Burr, J. A., Tavares, J., & Mutchler, J. E. (2011). Volunteering
and hypertension risk in later life. Journal of Aging and
Health, 23,24–51.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity,
measurement properties and normative data in a large
non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
43, 245–265.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49,71–75.
Duchenne, G. B. (1990). The mechanism of human facial
expression. (R. A. Cuthbertson, Ed. and Trans.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Original work published
1862).
Dulin, P. L., Gavala, J., Stephens, C., Kostick, M., &
McDonald, J. (2012). Volunteering predicts happiness
among older Māori and non-Māori in the New Zealand
health, work, and retirement longitudinal study. Aging and
Mental Health, 16, 617–624.
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending
money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319,
1687–1688.
Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. (1990). The
Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain
physiology II. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 342–353.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1982). Felt, false, and miserable
smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 238–252.
Feingold, A. (1983). Happiness, unselfishness, and popularity.
The Journal of Psychology, 115,3–5.
Finkelstein, M. A., Penner, L. A., & Brannick, M. T. (2005).
Motive, role identity, and prosocial personality as predictors
of volunteer activity. Social Behavior and Personality: An
international journal, 33, 403–418.
Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences
in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional
intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
427–434.
Gleason, M. E., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003).
Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1133–1146.
Gore, S. (1981). Stress-buffering functions of social support:
An appraisal and clarification of research models. In B. S.
Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life
events and their contexts (pp. 202–222). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Harris, M. B. (1977). Effects of altruism on mood. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 102, 197–208.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social
relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review.
PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000316.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social
relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.
Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in
emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686–703.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Problems and promises with
the circumplex model of emotion. Review of Personality
and Social Psychology, 13,25–59.
Layous, K., Lee, H., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013).
Culture matters when designing a successful happiness-
increasing activity: A comparison of the United States and
South Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44,
1294–1303.
Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A.,
& Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Kindness counts: Prompting
prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance
and well-being. PLoS ONE, 7, e51380.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 9
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits
of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005).
Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change.
Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131.
Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004).
Pursuing sustained happiness through random acts of kind-
ness and counting one’s blessings: Tests of two six-week
interventions. Unpublished raw data.
Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received
social support: The importance of responsiveness.
Psychological Science, 20, 928–932.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002).
The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical
topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82,112–127.
Messinger, D. S., Cassel, T. D., Acosta, S. I., Ambadar, Z., &
Cohn, J. F. (2008). Infant smiling dynamics and perceived
positive emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32,
133–155.
Meyer, R. (2014). Share it forward: How 1 Facebook status
spread across the world. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/on-
facebook-pay-it-forward-statuses-spanned-the-world/361170
Miller, G. E., Cohen, S., Pressman, S., Barkin, A., Rabin, B.
S., & Treanor, J. J. (2004). Psychological stress and anti-
body response to influenza vaccination: When is the critical
period for stress, and how does it get inside the body?
Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 215–223.
Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2003). Volunteering and
depression: The role of psychological and social resources
in different age groups. Social Science and Medicine, 56,
259–269.
Newsom, J. T. (1999). Another side to caregiving:
Negative reactions to being helped. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8, 183–187.
Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999).
Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of auton-
omous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 266–284.
Oman, D., Thoresen, C. E., & McMahon, K. (1999). Volunteer-
ism and mortality among the community-dwelling elderly.
Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 301–316.
Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., &
Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier
through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 361–375.
Pay It Forward Foundation. (2013). Retrieved April 17, 2014,
from http://www.payitforwardfoundation.org
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good
to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
12,66–77.
Reinke, B. J., Holmes, D. S., & Denney, N. W. (1981).
Influence of a “friendly visitor”program on the cognitive
functioning and morale of elderly persons. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 491–504.
Rietschlin, J. (1998). Voluntary association membership and
psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 39, 348–355.
Ripil. (2014). Mobileaze LLC (Version 1.1.1) [Mobile applica-
tion software]. Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com
Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M.
M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic
review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 140–187.
Ryan, R. M., & Solky, J. A. (1996). What is supportive about
social support? On the psychological needs for autonomy
and relatedness. In G. R. Pierce & B. R. Sarason (Eds.),
Handbook of social support and the family. Plenum series
on stress and coping (pp. 249–267). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Ryan-Hyde, C. (1999). Pay it forward. New York, NY: Simon
and Schuster.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994).
Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait
anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of
the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Schulz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on the
physical and psychological well-being of the institutional-
ized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
33, 563–573.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Positive psychology: Fundamental
assumptions. The Psychologist, 16, 126–127.
Tkach, C. T. (2006). Unlocking the treasury of human
kindness: Enduring improvements in mood, happiness, and
self-evaluations. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 67, 603–675.
Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement:
Effects of varying descriptors, time frames, and response
formats on measures of Positive and Negative Affect. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 128–141.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for
the positive and negative affect schedule –Expanded form.
Retrieved February 21, 2014, from http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=psychology_pubs
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps:
Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its
influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 222–244.
Wheeler, J. A., Gorey, K. M., & Greenblatt, B. (1998). The
beneficial effects of volunteering for older volunteers and
the people they serve: A meta-analysis. The International
Journal of Aging and Human Development, 47,69–79.
Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational
citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on
employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions.
The Journal of Psychology, 133, 656–668.
Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1989). Providing help and
desired relationship type as determinants of changes in
moods and self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 722–734.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). The effects of volunteering
on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62,
141–168.
Windsor, T. D., Anstey, K. J., & Rodgers, B. (2008). Volunteer-
ing and psychological well-being among young-old adults:
How much is too much? The Gerontologist, 48,59–70.
10 S.D. Pressman et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 12:35 20 October 2014