Access to this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from SAGE Open
This content is subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018818621
SAGE Open
October-December 2018: 1 –11
© The Author(s) 2018
DOI: 10.1177/2158244018818621
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Original Research
Introduction
Some people just seem to be happier than others. What fac-
tors are associated with their happiness? I argue that appre-
ciation may play an important role in mental health and
subjective well-being, including affective well-being. As is
the case with other emotions, appreciation can be conceptu-
alized both as an emotion and as a disposition. A person’s
current emotional state might be that she is feeling apprecia-
tion. Someone else might be feeling happy. These statements
describe emotions felt in the current moment. Emotions are
brief. But if, over time, one has a tendency to feel apprecia-
tion, feeling appreciation often and/or in many circum-
stances, then one has a disposition of appreciation. Research
has demonstrated there are individual differences in appre-
ciation, that is, in the tendency to feel appreciation (e.g.,
Adler & Fagley, 2005; Tucker, 2007). This is consistent with
most people’s personal observations that at one end of the
continuum are people who appreciate kindnesses or opportu-
nities, appreciate beauty wherever it is found, and value fam-
ily and friends. At the other end of the continuum are those
who do not appear to notice these positive aspects of their
lives and take their positive circumstances or experiences for
granted (Fagley, 2012, 2016). However, although there are
individual differences in the tendency to feel appreciation, it
is also possible to increase one’s tendency to experience
appreciation through particular beliefs and practices, which
can be learned (Adler & Fagley, 2005).
Appreciation has been defined as “acknowledging the
value and meaning of something—an event, a person, a
behavior, an object—and feeling a positive emotional con-
nection to it” (Adler & Fagley, 2005, p. 81). Elements of this
definition were offered by Wood, Froh, and Geraghty (2010)
to describe a “life orientation” of gratitude. However, Fagley
(2012, 2016) has argued that the construct of appreciation
subsumes gratitude (see also Tudge & Freitas, 2017).
Appreciation has been argued to be a key factor in forging
and maintaining social bonds (Adler & Fagley, 2005; Algoe,
818621SGOXXX10.1177/2158244018818621SAGE OpenFagley
research-article20182018
1Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA
Corresponding Author:
N. S. Fagley, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology,
Rutgers University, 152 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020,
USA.
Email: fagley@rutgers.edu
Appreciation (Including Gratitude) and
Affective Well-Being: Appreciation
Predicts Positive and Negative Affect
Above the Big Five Personality Factors
and Demographics
N. S. Fagley1
Abstract
This study investigated the relation between appreciation and positive and negative affect, controlling for gender, age,
ethnicity, and Big Five personality factors. Appreciation consists of several aspects, including a focus on what one has (“have”
focus), awe, gratitude, and interpersonal appreciation. Undergraduates (N = 236) completed an online survey containing the
Appreciation Scale, Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), and Big Five Inventory (BFI). The Big Five traits accounted
for 38% and 43% of the variance in positive and negative affect, respectively, beyond demographics. Appreciation accounted
for 9% (p < .001) and 4.6% (p < .05) of the variance in positive and negative affect, respectively, beyond demographics and
the Big Five. The “have” focus aspect of appreciation, which represents noticing, focusing on, and valuing what one has,
accounted for significant unique variance in both positive and negative affect. Gratitude did not. Future research is needed to
determine how broadly these results generalize.
Keywords
appreciation, gratitude, well-being, positive affect, negative affect, Big Five
2 SAGE Open
2012; Algoe, Gable, & Maisel, 2010; Fagley & Adler, 2012;
Kubacka, Finkenauer, Rusbult, & Keijsers, 2011) and in
well-being (Adler & Fagley, 2005; Fagley, 2012; Lim, 2015).
In addition, it has been viewed as connected to spirituality
and as an important ingredient for success in the workplace
(Fagley & Adler, 2012). Although some view appreciation
and gratitude as the same construct and use the terms inter-
changeably, others view them as distinctly different (e.g.,
Manela, 2016). Here, appreciation and gratitude are viewed
as hierarchically nested categories, with appreciation being
the higher order construct, which includes a number of
aspects such as gratitude, awe, and “have” focus, just as the
superordinate construct “bird” includes ducks, penguins, and
cardinals (Fagley, 2012, 2016). Feeling appreciation is nec-
essary, but not sufficient, for gratitude, just as laying eggs is
necessary, but not sufficient, for an animal to be classified as
a bird (Fagley, 2016; Watkins & Bell, 2017).
The construct of appreciation has been conceptualized as
having eight aspects: “have” focus, awe, ritual, present
moment, self/social comparison, gratitude, loss/adversity,
and interpersonal appreciation (Adler, 2002; Adler & Fagley,
2005). The “have” focus aspect of appreciation involves
noticing, focusing on, and valuing (appreciating) what one
has. This attentional focus on “what one has” counters the
tendency to take positive aspects of one’s life for granted.
The awe aspect is a feeling of awe or wonder in response to
beauty, nature, or life itself. Research has shown awe is asso-
ciated with elements of both subjective well-being and phys-
ical well-being. For example, Rudd, Vohs, and Aaker (2012)
showed awe was associated with greater life satisfaction.
Even more recently, Stellar et al. (2015) showed that awe
was the strongest predictor of lower inflammatory cytokines,
which are associated with better health outcomes. The ritual
aspect refers to using personal or religious rituals, routines,
or practices to remind oneself to notice and appreciate the
positive aspects of one’s life. The present moment aspect of
appreciation consists of focusing on the positive elements of
the present moment, with mindful awareness. Focusing
attention on the positive in the present or imbuing neutral
elements with positive meaning counters the tendency to
ruminate on the negative events of the past or worry about
the future in ways that rob us of the present. The self/social
comparison aspect of appreciation refers to using compari-
son to a worse moment or circumstance in one’s past to
enhance appreciation of the present. Or, one may compare
one’s situation with that of others who are less fortunate to
foster appreciation for what one has. For example, it may
help one value one’s basic model bicycle, if one remembers
there are many without a bicycle of any kind who therefore
must travel long distances on foot. The gratitude aspect of
appreciation is a feeling of grateful emotion directed toward
one’s benefactor in response to a kindness or benefits
received such as help, a gift, or an opportunity—or even
attempts to provide them. Researchers have identified a
number of factors that affect a recipient’s gratitude to a
benefactor, such as the benefactor’s intention, the benefit’s
value to the recipient, cost to the benefactor, and its per-
ceived responsiveness to the self (e.g., Algoe, Haidt, &
Gable, 2008; Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968).
The loss/adversity aspect represents using experiences of
loss or adversity to promote greater valuing (appreciation) of
what one still has, but which previously may have been taken
for granted. Janoff-Bulman and Berger (2000) observed that
trauma survivors often experience increased appreciation.
The traumatic event triggers a change in perspective—adop-
tion of a new reference point—and enhanced valuing of ordi-
nary experiences. Even a close call or an anticipated loss can
foster appreciation. This may occur because it jolts people
out of the view that things will always stay as they are now,
causing people to realize that positive experiences, time, and
life itself are limited, “scarce.” Using this principle, Kurtz
(2008) demonstrated that college students in their last year
appreciated their last year more when they were prompted to
think about the fact that their college experience was almost
over. The anticipated loss increased the value placed on the
remaining college experience, increasing appreciation. And
finally, interpersonal appreciation is valuing and appreciat-
ing others in one’s life and expressing that to them. This is
not gratitude, as one is not grateful to them for a particular
benefit or act of kindness, but instead one notices and values
their presence in one’s life, their positive qualities, and their
fellowship and expresses that appreciation to them. Lambert
and Fincham (2011, Study 3) showed that experimental
manipulation of expressing appreciation to a friend led to
significantly greater comfort in expressing relationship con-
cerns, viewed as an important relationship maintenance
behavior. This provides evidence supporting the idea that
interpersonal appreciation is a key factor in building and
maintaining social bonds (Adler & Fagley, 2005; Fagley &
Adler, 2012).
According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotion (Fredrickson, 1998, 2013), experiences of positive
emotion broaden awareness, build personal resources, and
can begin an upward spiral leading to more positive emotion
(Garland et al., 2010). Appreciation may be one avenue to
this upward spiral of increasing positive affect (PA). In fact,
Fredrickson (2004) noted that upward spirals triggered by
gratitude (actually “have” focus appreciation) have been
demonstrated empirically (i.e., Emmons & McCullough,
2003, Study 1). She argued that the effects of experiencing
positive emotions compound over time, transforming indi-
viduals such that they become “more creative, knowledge-
able, resilient, socially integrated, and healthy” (Fredrickson,
2004, p. 153). That is, positive emotions broaden cognition
and foster creative thinking, building new personal resources
and triggering an upward spiral of ever-improving function-
ing and emotional well-being (Fredrickson, 2004). Even the
more cognitive aspects of appreciation are expected to
increase PA. For example, as suggested by Fagley (2012),
noticing and focusing on what one has and valuing it may
Fagley 3
prevent or reduce hedonic adaptation, which would lead to
greater PA and life satisfaction. Schneider (2001) expressed
a similar view. Hedonic adaptation is the phenomenon in
which people become accustomed (habituated) to their cir-
cumstances so that the delicious meal, the loving spouse, or
the luxurious car no longer generates positive emotions.
They are taken for granted, no longer noticed. But the pro-
cess of explicitly noticing, focusing one’s attention on, and
valuing what one has disrupts the psychological process of
taking these circumstances, people, experiences, or items for
granted. They are seen afresh. One can appreciate all over
again that one’s car has heated seats or that the view from
campus is stunning in late afternoon. Consistent with this
view, the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention Model (Sheldon &
Lyubomirsky, 2012) highlights appreciation as one of two
key paths for avoiding hedonic adaptation.
A growing body of research has examined appreciation
(in some cases just gratitude, which is viewed here as one
aspect of appreciation) as a predictor of subjective well-
being (e.g., Adler & Fagley, 2005; Lim, 2015). Subjective
well-being has been defined as having a cognitive compo-
nent consisting of one’s appraisal of one’s life (life satisfac-
tion) and an affective component consisting of one’s PA and
negative affect (NA; Pavot & Diener, 1993). Studies in
which appreciation (including gratitude) was experimen-
tally manipulated suggest that its role may be causal in fos-
tering well-being (e.g., Lambert, Fincham, Stillman, &
Dean, 2009). Although some studies have experimentally
examined what was termed gratitude, if one examines the
definitions of the aspects of appreciation and compares
those to the various interventions, it is often the case that
they have, in fact, studied another aspect of appreciation
than gratitude. For example, the “list three things” task
appears to be a “have” focus intervention as it asks people
to list things they have for which they are grateful or that
they appreciate (Fagley, 2016; Fagley & Adler, 2012). This
fosters noticing and valuing what one has. There is no men-
tion of directing gratitude to someone who provided the
“thing” for which one is “grateful,” which is a defining
attribute of gratitude (Algoe et al., 2008; Roberts, 2004).
Similarly, some versions of the “gratitude letter” task are
more appropriately viewed as targeting interpersonal appre-
ciation, as they are expressions of how much one values
and appreciates a person and his or her influence on one’s
life, rather than an expression of gratitude to that person for
a particular kind act or gift.
Schneider (2001) argued that appreciation promotes PA,
better coping with stress, and better relationships with oth-
ers. Adler and Fagley (2005) demonstrated that individual
differences in the tendency to feel appreciation are related
to life satisfaction, PA, and, to a lesser degree, NA. Lim
(2015) reported that the “have” focus aspect of apprecia-
tion, in which people focus on what they have and value it,
was a significant predictor of emotional well-being, social
well-being, and psychological well-being in a sample of
South Korean university students. Fagley (2012) reported
that appreciation accounted for significant variance in life
satisfaction, the cognitive component of subjective well-
being, even when individual differences in the Big 5 per-
sonality factors of Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism were con-
trolled. The Big 5 personality factors have been shown to
account for considerable variance in subjective well-being
(Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008), around 20% or 30% of
the variance, depending on the component of subjective
well-being. Therefore, it is important to control for the Big
Five personality factors when examining a variable’s rela-
tion to subjective well-being. Yet neither Lim (2015) nor
Adler and Fagley (2005) did so. Would the relation between
appreciation and PA (reported by Adler & Fagley, 2005)
persist once individual differences in the Big Five personal-
ity traits are controlled?
In this article, the relation between appreciation and PA
and NA is examined more closely. This study examined two
pairs of research questions. The first pair of questions exam-
ined whether appreciation would account for significant
variance in PA and NA once the Big 5 personality factors and
demographics were controlled. The second pair of research
questions sought to identify which aspects of appreciation, if
any, would account for significant, unique variance in affec-
tive well-being (PA and NA) when demographics and per-
sonality factors were controlled.
Finding out whether appreciation is related to affective
well-being is important for two reasons: one practical and
one theoretical. From a practical standpoint, it is important to
know whether they are related once the Big Five personality
factors have been controlled because that would suggest it
may be worthwhile to develop interventions targeting appre-
ciation. As it currently stands, it may be that prior studies
found a significant relation between appreciation and emo-
tional well-being because they failed to control for the Big
Five personality factors. That is, the apparent relation
between appreciation and emotional well-being may merely
represent shared variance of appreciation with the Big Five,
as the Big Five factors are also related to emotional well-
being. Furthermore, if one can determine which aspects of
appreciation exhibit the strongest relationships with affective
well-being, then it may suggest which aspects of apprecia-
tion to target with an intervention. One could focus first on
those aspects, developing interventions designed to target
those particular aspects of appreciation specifically. From a
theoretical perspective, the broaden-and-build theory of pos-
itive emotion asserts that experiencing positive emotion
begins an upward spiral leading to increases in overall posi-
tive emotion. That is, as appreciation is a positive emotion, it
should lead to greater levels of other positive emotions.
Thus, appreciation should be associated with significant
variance in PA. It is expected to have little relation to NA;
greater levels of appreciation may tend to be associated with
somewhat lower levels of NA.
4 SAGE Open
Method
Participants
Undergraduates at a large state university in the northeastern
United States, as part of a larger study (reported in Fagley,
2012), completed an online survey constructed using
Qualtrics survey software. Two hundred fifty-five individu-
als visited the study’s informed consent page at least once;
252 chose to start the survey, and of these, 246 completed it.
The six cases who did not complete the survey were deleted.
Of the 246 who completed the survey, there were no missing
data (as the survey required a response to continue). However,
four spent less than 10 min completing the survey, and they
were omitted from subsequent analyses. Ten minutes was
determined to be the minimum time needed to complete the
survey based on pilot testing. Responses from one 17-year-
old were removed from the data set, as potential participants
needed to be at least 18 to give informed consent. Three
cases who had standardized residuals greater than 3 and two
who constituted multivariate outliers based on their signifi-
cant Mahalanobis distances were omitted from further analy-
sis, as recommended by Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2013),
leaving 236 (86 men and 150 women). Screening was com-
pleted prior to any analyses of the hypotheses. SPSS v24 was
used for all data analysis. Of the 236 participants, 51.3%
reported their ethnic background as White, 24.6% Asian,
9.7% Latino, 8.1% African American/Black, and 6.4% other.
Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 24, with a mean of 18.82
(SD = 1.13).
Procedure
After study approval by the University’s institutional review
board (IRB), the survey containing the measures of apprecia-
tion, Big 5 personality traits, and PA and NA was listed on
the Psychology Department’s subject pool website. Students
could click the link to the informed consent page which
described the study. Those who agreed to participate could
then begin the survey, and if they completed it, they obtained
1 research participation credit (of the 5 needed for their
course requirement). The Sona System software used on the
subject pool website allowed students to participate anony-
mously and yet obtain participation credit.
Measures
Appreciation. The Appreciation Scale (Adler & Fagley, 2005)
was used to measure appreciation. It is composed of eight
subscales assessing the eight aspects of appreciation
described earlier: “have” focus, awe, ritual, present moment,
self/social comparison, gratitude, loss/adversity, and inter-
personal appreciation (see Table 1). Previous research by
Wood, Maltby, Stewart, and Joseph (2008) and Adler and
Fagley (2005) reported reliabilities ranging from .95 for grat-
itude to .62 for self/social comparison. Adler and Fagley
(2005) also reported evidence of validity including correla-
tions with variables in the nomological net and comparing
known groups. Each of the 57 items is rated on a 1 (strongly
disagree/never) to 7 (strongly agree/more than once a day)
scale. Responses to items comprising each subscale were
summed and divided by the number of items in the subscale
to yield the subscale score. Thus, subscale scores represent
the average rating given to items in that subscale and there-
fore can range from 1 to 7. Table 1 includes a typical item
from each scale.
PA and NA. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS;
Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure the
affective components of well-being, as it is the scale most
often used for this purpose and exhibits good reliability. The
scale is composed of two 10-item subscales. For those unfa-
miliar with the PANAS, it is important to note that none of its
items assess any of the aspects of appreciation. Items are
single words such as “inspired” (in the PA subscale) or
“afraid” (in the NA subscale), which are rated on a 1 (very
slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely) scale. Consequently,
Table 1. Examples of Items From Each Subscale of the Appreciation Scale.
Aspect of appreciation
No. of items in
subscale Sample item
“Have” focus 10 “I remind myself to think about the good things I have in my life.”
Awe 6 “I get caught up in the wonderment of life.”
Ritual 6 “I perform rituals (i.e., pray or say grace before a meal) that remind me to be
appreciative.”
Present moment 7 “I enjoy the little things around me like the trees, the wind, animals, sounds, light, etc.”
Self/social comparison 5 “I reflect on the worst times in my life to help me realize how fortunate I am now.”
Gratitude 10 “When a friend gives me a ride somewhere when he or she doesn’t have to, I really
appreciate it.”
Loss/Adversity 8 “I use my own experiences of loss to help me pay more attention to what I have now.”
Interpersonal appreciation 5 “I acknowledge to others how important they are to me.”
Note. The 57-item Appreciation Scale was developed by Adler and Fagley (2005).
Fagley 5
scores on each subscale can range from 10 to 50, with higher
scores indicating stronger affect. Watson et al. (1988)
reported coefficient alpha reliabilities of .88 and .87 for the
PA and NA scales, respectively.
The Big Five personality traits. The Big 5 Inventory (BFI; John,
Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) was used to measure the Big Five
personality traits of Openness to Experience, Conscientious-
ness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The
BFI consists of 44 brief items rated on a 1 (disagree strongly)
to 5 (agree strongly) scale. Responses to items comprising
each subscale were summed and divided by the number of
items in the subscale to yield the subscale score. A typical
item is “I am someone who can be moody.” John, Naumann,
and Soto (2008) reviewed research on the Big Five Inventory
and reported coefficient alpha values from .87 to.79 and dis-
cussed considerable evidence of validity.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics and reliabilities are reported in Table 2.
All scale reliabilities were above .72. These values were sim-
ilar to those reported in previous research (e.g., Adler &
Fagley, 2005; Wood et al., 2008).
Correlations of appreciation subscales with PA and NA. As shown
in Table 3, Pearson correlations between the appreciation scales
and PA ranged from .55 (for “have” focus) to.22 (for gratitude).
All were significant at the alpha .001 level. However, one was
less than .3, three were between .31 and .4, three were between
.41 and .5, and only one was greater than .5. Only two aspects
of appreciation were significantly (negatively) correlated with
NA: “have” focus, with a correlation of –.21, p = .001, and
gratitude, with a correlation of –.16, p = .011. The other six
correlations were less than an absolute value of.10.
Correlations of the Big 5 factors with appreciation subscales. As
shown in Table 3, correlations ranged from .44 (between
present moment and openness to experience) to.04 (between
self/social comparison and neuroticism). However, 33 of the
40 correlations were below .3, six were between .3 and .4,
and one was greater than .4. Significant correlations between
the Big 5 personality factors and the aspects of appreciation
and PA and NA suggest that personality should be controlled
when examining the relations between appreciation and PA
and NA. Otherwise, correlations between appreciation and
PA or NA could be due to variance appreciation shares with
the Big 5 personality factors.
Correlations with the demographic variables. It should be noted
that there are statistically significant gender differences in
appreciation. These correlations between gender and appre-
ciation subscale scores ranged from .147 to .272, correspond-
ing to 2.2% to 7.4% of the variance. This argues for
controlling gender in analyses of appreciation. There were
also significant differences in PA for two of the dichotomies
representing ethnic groups: African American/Black and
Asian. This suggests it may be important to control for eth-
nicity. Age was not significantly correlated with any of the
appreciation scales, PA or NA, or the Big Five traits. How-
ever, Wood et al. (2008, Study 1) found that age was signifi-
cantly correlated with two aspects of appreciation measured
via the Appreciation Scale, as well as two subscales of the
GRAT. In addition, a study by Callan, Kim, and Matthews
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (N = 236).
Variable M SD Theoretical range Observed range Coefficient alpha
Positive affect 35.92 5.86 10-50 17-50 .82
Negative affect 22.59 7.60 10-50 10-43 .88
BFI Openness 3.56 0.52 1-5 2.40-4.90 .76
BFI Conscientiousness 3.46 0.59 1-5 1.56-4.89 .80
BFI Extraversion 3.36 0.74 1-5 1.38-5.00 .86
BFI Agreeableness 3.75 0.58 1-5 2.00-5.00 .77
BFI Neuroticism 2.91 0.69 1-5 1.25-4.75 .82
AS_”Have” Focus 5.46 0.83 1-7 2.80-7.00 .86
AS_Awe 4.85 0.98 1-7 1.33-7.00 .75
AS_Ritual 4.60 1.26 1-7 1.33-7.00 .83
AS_Present Moment 5.23 0.89 1-7 1.86-6.86 .79
AS_Self/Social comparison 5.03 0.99 1-7 1.60-7.00 .72
AS_Gratitude 6.15 0.62 1-7 4.00-7.00 .76
AS_Loss/Adversity 5.26 0.93 1-7 1.75-7.00 .80
AS_Interpersonal 5.15 0.99 1-7 2.20-7.00 .82
Age 18.82 1.13 18-24
Note. BFI = Big Five Inventory; AS = Appreciation Scale.
6 SAGE Open
(2015) found that age was significantly related to the ten-
dency to engage in social comparison and to the feeling of
resentment “originating from the belief that one is deprived
of desired and deserved outcomes compared to others” (p.
196). These variables are similar to the self/social compari-
son aspect of appreciation. Thus, although the variability/
range of ages in this sample was small, which should reduce
the size of observed correlations, these considerations sug-
gested it would be prudent to control for age.
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses
Two hierarchical regression analyses were computed, one for
PA and one for NA. All tolerance values exceeded .10 (and
variance inflation factors [VIFs] <10), indicating no prob-
lems with multicollinearity (Meyers et al., 2013). In each
analysis, demographic variables were entered together, as a
set, in Block 1, then the Big 5 personality factors were
entered as a set in Block 2, and, finally, the appreciation
scales were entered together in Block 3. This allowed the
total variance accounted for by each set of variables to be
quantified and tested for significance, controlling for all pre-
viously entered variables. In addition, the unique variance
accounted for by each aspect of appreciation could be
assessed with all other variables controlled.
PA. As shown in Table 4, in Block 1, PA was regressed on
age, gender, and ethnicity (represented as four dichotomies).
The R2 of .049 was not significant, F(6, 229) = 2.18, p =
.070). In Block 2, the Big 5 personality factors were added to
the analysis. The change in R2 of .384 was significant, F(5,
224) = 30.34, p < .001. In Block 3, the eight appreciation
subscales were entered into the analysis. The change in R2 of
.090 was significant, F(8, 216) = 5.10, p < .001. Apprecia-
tion accounts for significant variance in PA, even when age,
ethnicity, gender, and the Big 5 personality factors are con-
trolled. As a whole, the set of appreciation subscales
accounted for 9% of the variance in PA, over-and-above age,
gender, ethnicity, and the Big 5 personality factors. Of the
appreciation subscales, only “have” focus accounted for sig-
nificant unique variance in PA, 1.5% of the variance as indi-
cated by the semipartial r2 (t = 2.64, p = .009).
NA. In Block 1, NA was regressed on age, gender, and ethnic-
ity (represented as four dichotomies). As shown in Table 4, the
R2 of .026 was not significant, F(6, 229) = 1.01, p = .42). In
Block 2, the Big 5 personality factors were added to the analy-
sis. The change in R2 of .431 was significant, F(5, 224) =
35.51, p < .001. In Block 3, the eight appreciation subscales
were entered into the analysis. The change in R2 of .046 was
significant, F(8, 216) = 2.48, p = .014. Appreciation accounts
for significant variance in NA, even when age, ethnicity, gen-
der, and the Big 5 personality factors are controlled. As a
whole, appreciation accounted for 4.6% of the variance in NA,
over-and-above age, ethnicity, gender, and the Big 5 personal-
ity factors. As was the case with PA, the only appreciation
Table 3. Pearson Correlations (N = 236).
Variable
Affect Appreciation Big Five traits
PA NA H A R P S G L I O C E A N
PA —
NA –.187** —
AS_H .552*** –.210*** —
AS_A .388*** –.015 .679*** —
AS_R .361*** –.061 .671*** .569*** —
AS_P .434*** –.066 .720*** .726*** .510*** —
AS_S .347*** .079 .619*** .503*** .476*** .548*** —
AS_G .220*** –.164* .474*** .318*** .296*** .403*** .298*** —
AS_L .402*** –.007 .632*** .560*** .514*** .576*** .707*** .435*** —
AS_I .413*** –.040 .634*** .498*** .411*** .594*** .432*** .291*** .451*** —
O .316*** –.059 .250*** .280*** .097 .437*** .190** .275*** .155* .222*** —
C .418*** –.312*** .395*** .132* .244*** .254*** .227*** .260*** .253*** .226*** .031 —
E .504*** –.202** .331*** .214*** .195** .286*** .139* .184** .254*** .369*** .299*** .235*** —
A .213*** –.399*** .314*** .203** .187** .321*** .167* .393*** .261*** .269*** .194** .381*** .158* —
N–.240*** .628*** –.221*** –.083 –.058 –.141* .038 –.056 –.078 –.115 –.090 –.214*** –.253*** –.339*** —
Gender .009 .114 .177** .165* .147* .270*** .200** .272*** .214*** .165* .100 .134* .113 .176** .255***
Note. Gender was coded: 1 = male; 2 = female. PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect; AS_H = “Have” Focus subscale of Appreciation Scale; AS_A =
Awe subscale of Appreciation Scale; AS_R = Ritual subscale of Appreciation Scale; AS_P = Present Moment subscale of Appreciation Scale; AS_S = Self/
Social Comparison subscale of Appreciation Scale; AS_G = Gratitude subscale of Appreciation Scale; AS_L = Loss/Adversity subscale of Appreciation
Scale; AS_I = Interpersonal Appreciation subscale of Appreciation Scale; O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; A =
Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Fagley 7
subscale accounting for significant unique variance (i.e., not
including variance accounted for by two or more subscales)
was the “Have” Focus scale, which accounted for 1.6% of the
variance in NA (t = −2.64, p = .009), as indicated by semipar-
tial r2.
Discussion
Results clearly highlight the importance of the Big 5 per-
sonality traits for affective well-being. As a group, the Big
Five personality factors accounted for 38.4% and 43.1% of
the variance in PA and NA, respectively, over-and-above
age, gender, and ethnicity, thus demonstrating the impor-
tance of controlling for personality when assessing the
variance accounted for by appreciation (or any other dis-
positional or behavioral variable). Overall, appreciation
accounted for an additional 9% and 4.6% of the variance in
PA and NA, respectively, over-and-above the Big 5 and the
demographic variables. This is remarkable given the large
amount of variance in PA and NA already accounted for by
demographic variables and personality factors. This indi-
cates that the previously reported relationship between
appreciation subscales and affective well-being (i.e., Adler
& Fagley, 2005) was not due to individual differences in
personality, as measured by the Big 5 factors. That is,
results are important because they demonstrate that the
relationships are not merely the result of shared variance
that appreciation and affective well-being share with the
Big Five personality traits. Appreciation accounts for sig-
nificant variance in PA and NA, beyond personality and
demographics.
A greater tendency to feel appreciation is associated with
higher levels of PA, as indicated by the significant positive
correlations between aspects of appreciation and PA. That is,
results are consistent with Fredrickson’s (1998, 2004, 2013)
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion and the view
that a greater tendency to feel appreciation leads to increases
in other positive emotions, as well as appreciation. This is
the “upward spiral” phenomenon described by Fredrickson
and colleagues (e.g., Fredrickson, 2013; Garland et al.,
2010). Although results are consistent with this theory, the
cross-sectional data cannot rule out alternatives. Longitudinal
data will be needed to provide more clarity about the actual
process of change over time.
Table 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Positive Affect and Negative Affect From Demographic Variables, Big 5
Personality Factors, and Appreciation Subscales (N = 236).
Variables added at each step/block
Positive affect Negative affect
ΔR2βsr2ΔR2βsr2
Block 1 .049 .026
Gender –.028 .001 .121 .014
Age –.017 <.001 –.067 .004
African American/Black .042 .001 .035 .001
Asian –.274 .020* .124 .004
Latino –.054 .001 .094 .004
White –.169 .006 .166 .006
Block 2 .384*** .431***
BFI Openness .206 .036*** .041 .001
BFI Conscientiousness .333 .080*** –.135 .013*
BFI Extraversion .392 .120*** –.030 .001
BFI Agreeableness –.001 <.001 –.179 .022**
BFI Neuroticism –.011 <.001 .523 .194***
Block 3 .090*** .046*
AS_”Have” Focus .266 .015** –.271 .016**
AS_Awe .042 .001 .058 .001
AS_Ritual –.051 .001 .039 .001
AS_Present Moment .027 <.001 .080 .002
AS_Self/Social Comparison .015 <.001 .081 .003
AS_Gratitude –.070 .003 –.080 .004
AS_Loss/Adversity .080 .002 .114 .005
AS_Interpersonal .040 .001 .115 .007
Total R2.523*** .502***
Note. Variables added in a prior block remain in the model through subsequent blocks/steps. ΔR2 = the change in R2; sr2= semipartial r2, which indicates
the proportion of variance; β = the standardized regression coefficient, the beta weight. Gender was coded: 1 = male; 2 = female. Each ethnicity
category was coded 1 if a member of the category, or 0 if not. For example, Asian was coded 1 if the participant was Asian and 0 if not Asian. BFI = Big
Five Inventory; AS = Appreciation Scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
8 SAGE Open
Greater appreciation is also associated with lower NA, as
indicated by the significant negative bivariate correlations
between aspects of appreciation and NA. Consistent with the
findings of Adler and Fagley (2005), appreciation is more
strongly related to PA than to NA. This is logical, as appre-
ciation is a positive emotion, and people who have a greater
tendency to feel appreciation would also be expected to have
a greater tendency to feel other positive emotions and greater
PA. In contrast, one’s tendency to feel appreciation is less
predictive of one’s tendency to feel NA. The bivariate cor-
relations between aspects of appreciation and NA were gen-
erally smaller than the correlations with PA, and fewer were
significant. In terms of the multiple regression analyses,
appreciation accounted for about twice as much variance in
PA than NA. Initially, one might expect that greater PA would
necessarily mean less NA. But the Pearson correlation
between PA and NA was only –.187 (p = .004), so although
there is a negative correlation between PA and NA, the rela-
tionship is far from perfect. Consequently, when another
characteristic such as appreciation is positively correlated
with PA, it says little about the degree of correlation expected
with NA. This is consistent with prior research showing there
is little relation between trait PA and NA (see Watson, 2002,
for a brief review or Adler & Fagley, 2005, for a
discussion).
The current findings are also important because they
show that aspects of appreciation, other than gratitude, may
be important in affective well-being. The significant vari-
ance in both PA and NA accounted for uniquely by the “have”
focus aspect of appreciation extends the findings reported by
Adler and Fagley (2005) for U.S. college students and Lim
(2015) for South Korean college students by showing that
this relation is significant even when one controls for the Big
5 personality factors and demographics, which neither prior
study did. This provides stronger evidence of the relation
between the “have” focus aspect of appreciation and affec-
tive well-being.
The largest correlation with PA reported in Table 3,
including those with the Big 5, was with the “have” focus
aspect of appreciation. This is particularly surprising because
“have” focus is a more cognitively focused aspect of appre-
ciation. Yet it is more strongly correlated with PA than the
emotion-focused aspects of awe and gratitude. In fact, the
Pearson correlation between “have” focus and PA was sig-
nificantly greater than the correlation between gratitude and
PA (.552 vs. .220; Z = 5.66, p < .01; Lee & Preacher, 2013).
This is true for the correlation with awe as well (.552 vs.
.388; Z = 3.666, p < .01). What might explain this? Noticing,
focusing on, and valuing what one has represent an orienta-
tion to notice and find value and positive meaning in one’s
circumstances, opportunities, and possessions. One may
speculate that this would greatly increase one’s opportunities
to experience PA. For example, one can only feel awe if one
notices the sky at sunset. One can only feel gratitude if one
notices that others have intentionally provided assistance.
Thus, noticing is a prerequisite for a number of other positive
emotions, including those representing other aspects of
appreciation. In this way, “have” focus may be foundational
for other aspects of appreciation and for other positive
emotions.
Finally, the current results are important because they dem-
onstrate the value of a more differentiated view of the concepts
of gratitude and appreciation. Although gratitude is only one
of a number of aspects of appreciation, prior research has
focused almost exclusively on gratitude. But over the past
decade, there has been a growing “concept creep” in the defi-
nition of gratitude. This is a horizontal concept creep, in that
more phenomena are being referred to as gratitude. Rather
than joining in this tendency to label various related concepts
as gratitude, I am making a plea to retain the conceptual clarity
provided by the classic definition of gratitude (see also Fagley,
2016). Gratitude is a positive, emotional response directed to a
benefactor by the recipient of a benefit or kind act (Algoe
et al., 2008). Tesser et al. (1968) implicitly adopted this view
and found that gratitude is determined, in part, by perceptions
of the benefactor’s intention, cost to the benefactor, and value
of the benefit to the beneficiary. Philosophers have called this
view of gratitude a “three-term construal,” as it has a benefac-
tor, a benefit, and a beneficiary (e.g., Roberts, 2004). One
might refer to this as classic gratitude. But sometimes scholars
have included cases that lack a benefactor, such as when
someone is “grateful” for having a place to live or appreciates
the warmth of the sun on a cold day. Unless the person is
explicitly directing gratitude to God, being grateful for having
a place to live or appreciating the warmth of the sun does not,
in these cases, represent gratitude because the person is not
directing their positive emotional response to a responsible
agent whose intentional action caused him or her to “receive”
the benefit. But they represent something that is related, con-
ceptually, to gratitude, as both include valuing, “appreciating”
something, a requisite ingredient for gratitude. But instead of
gratitude, I would argue the instances represent another aspect
of appreciation such as “have” focus for the former and awe or
present moment for the latter. Gratitude is interpersonal
(Algoe et al., 2008; Fagley, 2016); it requires a responsible
agent (benefactor) whose intentional action/agency provided
the benefit to a recipient (beneficiary). “Have” focus, awe, and
present moment are not interpersonal; no “other” is involved.
However, Bryant and Veroff (2007) argued that the experience
of awe can be augmented by being socially shared.
Scientific study of a phenomenon requires clear defini-
tions (Fagley, 2016; Roberts, 2004). In fact, Fagley (2016)
argued, “. . . science advances, in part, because precise defi-
nitions of phenomena are developed that allow research to
progress” (p. 76). They may differ from definitions used by
laypeople. For example, as noted by Fagley (2016), laypeo-
ple often say they are “jealous” of someone’s good fortune.
However, an affective scientist would say it represents envy,
not jealousy. Lambert, Graham, and Fincham (2009) found
that laypeople tend to recognize two kinds of gratitude:
Fagley 9
benefit-triggered (which is the view of gratitude used here)
and “generalized” gratitude, which represents some of the
other aspects of appreciation that do not have an explicit
benefactor. Thus, even laypeople make distinctions, although
not as fine-grained as those made here. Using the conceptual
model of appreciation and differentiating among the various
aspects of appreciation should foster better scientific under-
standing of these phenomena, as different aspects may be
differentially related to key outcomes of interest (as observed
here and elsewhere), and it should facilitate developing inter-
ventions that target particular aspects (Fagley, 2016).
Recognizing, for example, that “have” focus is a distinct
construct from gratitude (and having a separate measure of
it) is necessary for identifying which outcomes are driven by
“have” focus, by gratitude, or by some combination.
Knowing which aspect drives the outcome can then facilitate
formulating/crafting an intervention targeting that aspect of
appreciation. This research provides an important first step
down that path.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
One limitation is the university student sample. Although the
sample was diverse in terms of ethnicity (48.7% non-White),
the participants were all students attending a university in the
United States who were 18 to 24 years old. Older adults,
people with less education, or people from other cultures
may show different patterns of relations among the variables.
However, even if no evidence of different correlations is
obtained for samples from different cultures (e.g., American
vs. Japanese samples; Robustelli & Whisman, 2018), it may
still be the case that an intervention targeting one of the vari-
ables has different effects in the different cultures. For exam-
ple, research has shown that the effects of some positive
psychology interventions differ depending on the nationality
or culture of the participants (e.g., Layous, Lee, Choi, &
Lyubomirsky, 2013). Layous et al. (2013) found that the
effects of a “gratitude” intervention differed depending on
whether conducted with a U.S. or a South Korean sample.
Thus, future research would benefit from examining older
adults and/or people of different nationalities or cultures to
see whether the relations observed here replicate with other
groups.
Another limitation is that the multiple regression analy-
sis does not take into account the differing reliabilities of
the variables (subscales). Reliability constrains observed
correlations. Thus, when reliabilities differ, it is preferable
to use an analysis procedure (e.g., structural equation mod-
eling [SEM]) that takes reliability into account (Westfall &
Yarkoni, 2016). Unfortunately, although the current sam-
ple was large enough for multiple regression analysis
(which uses the subscale scores), it was not large enough to
conduct SEM using the item responses. Consequently,
future research should obtain a larger sample so that SEM,
which takes into account scale reliability, can be
conducted. The current analysis using multiple regression,
however, does have the advantage of being easily com-
pared with other published work in this area, which has
often used multiple regression (e.g., Wood, Joseph, &
Maltby, 2008).
Another important limitation of the current study is
that the data were cross-sectional, involving naturally
occurring levels of appreciation and affective well-being
measured at one point in time. Appreciation was not
experimentally manipulated, so causality could not be
demonstrated. Future research could experimentally
examine appreciation, intervening to increase levels of
appreciation and demonstrate that increasing appreciation
leads to increases in affective well-being. Having a dif-
ferentiated view of the aspects of appreciation should be
useful in developing interventions targeting specific
aspects. It may also promote understanding why some
interventions work and others fail (e.g., they may target
another aspect of appreciation that is not related to the
measured outcome). Still another limitation of the study is
its reliance on self-report measures, which raises the con-
cern that people’s responses were influenced by social
desirability. However, the differences in the relationships
observed for the different aspects of appreciation provide
some evidence suggesting people did not just respond
based on social desirability, as all the aspects would be
viewed as desirable yet showed different relationships.
Finally, future research on appreciation could broaden the
scope of outcomes examined. Some scholars have argued
that the PANAS measures higher arousal affect (e.g.,
Miao, Koo, & Oishi, 2013). Future research should exam-
ine lower arousal examples of PA and NA to see whether
the relations observed here replicate. One might expect
appreciation to be more strongly related to lower arousal
PA, as aspects of appreciation such as awe or present
moment appear related to other low arousal affect such as
serenity. In addition, future studies could usefully exam-
ine other components or definitions of well-being, such as
the six domains of psychological well-being described by
Ryff (1989).
In sum, this study has demonstrated that the previously
reported relation between appreciation and PA and NA was
not simply due to their shared variance with the Big Five
personality traits. Appreciation accounted for 9% and 4.6%
of the variance in PA and NA, respectively, after controlling
for demographics and the Big Five factors. In addition, the
“have” focus aspect of appreciation accounted for significant
unique variance in both PA and NA, beyond demographics
and the Big Five. This suggests that the more differentiated
view represented by the model of appreciation may be useful
and that research could profitably expand beyond gratitude
to examine other aspects of appreciation. Future research
will need to verify these findings using SEM, with a broader
range of age and with international samples. In addition, lon-
gitudinal research could examine whether the process
10 SAGE Open
unfolds as indicated by the broaden-and-build theory of posi-
tive emotion.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
N. S. Fagley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3750-8604
References
Adler, M. G. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring appreciation:
The development of a positive psychology construct (Doctoral
dissertation). Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual dif-
ferences in finding value and meaning as a unique predictor of
subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 73, 79-114.
Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of
gratitude in everyday relationships. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 6, 455-469.
Algoe, S. B., Gable, S. L., & Maisel, N. C. (2010). It’s the little
things: Everyday gratitude as a booster shot for romantic rela-
tionships. Personal Relationships, 17, 217-233.
Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciproc-
ity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8,
425-429.
Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of posi-
tive experience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Callan, M. J., Kim, H., & Matthews, W. J. (2015). Age differences
in social comparison tendency and personal relative depriva-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 196-199.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessing
versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and
subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.
Fagley, N. S. (2012). Appreciation uniquely predicts life satisfac-
tion above demographics, the Big 5 personality factors, and
gratitude. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 59-63.
Fagley, N. S. (2016). The construct of appreciation: It is so much
more than gratitude. In D. Carr (Ed.), Perspectives on grati-
tude: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 70-84). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Fagley, N. S., & Adler, M. G. (2012). Appreciation: A spiritual
path to finding value and meaning in the workplace. Journal of
Management, Spirituality & Religion, 9, 167-187.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?
Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319.
Fredrickson, 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.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1-53.
Garland, E. L., Fredrickson, B., Kring, A. M., Johnson, D. P.,
Meyer, P. S., & Penn, D. L. (2010). Upward spirals of posi-
tive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity: Insights
from the broaden-and-build theory and affective neuroscience
on the treatment of emotion dysfunctions and deficits in psy-
chopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 849-864.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Berger, A. R. (2000). The other side of trauma:
Towards a psychology of appreciation. In J. H. Harvey & E. D.
Miller (Eds.), Loss and trauma: General and close relationship
perspectives (pp. 29-44). Philadelphia, PA: Bruner-Routledge.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big
Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University
of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social
Research.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to
the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kubacka, K. E., Finkenauer, C., Rusbult, C. E., & Keijsers, L.
(2011). Maintaining close relationships: Gratitude as a motiva-
tor and a detector of maintenance behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1362-1375.
Kurtz, J. L. (2008). Looking to the future to appreciate the pres-
ent: The benefits of perceived temporal scarcity. Psychological
Science, 19, 1238-1241.
Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Expressing gratitude
to a partner leads to more relationship maintenance behavior.
Emotion, 11, 52-60.
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., Stillman, T. F., & Dean, L. R.
(2009). More gratitude, less materialism: The mediating role
of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 32-42.
Lambert, N. M., Graham, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). A pro-
totype analysis of gratitude: Varieties of gratitude experiences.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1193-1207.
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.
Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Calculation for the test of the dif-
ference between two dependent correlations with one variable in
common [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org
Lim, Y. (2015). Relationship between positive mental health and
appreciation in Korean individuals. International Journal of
Psychology, 52, 220-226. doi:10.1002/ijop.12220
Manela, T. (2016). Gratitude and appreciation. American
Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 281-294.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied mul-
tivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miao, F. F., Koo, M., & Oishi, S. (2013). Subjective wellbeing. In
S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of happiness (pp. 174-184). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with
Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Roberts, R. C. (2004). The blessings of gratitude. In R. Emmons &
M. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 58-78).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fagley 11
Robustelli, B. L., & Whisman, M. A. (2018). Gratitude and life sat-
isfaction in the United States and Japan. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 19, 41-55.
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people’s
perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances well-
being. Psychological Science, 23, 1130-1136.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations
on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning,
knowledge, and warm fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56,
250-263.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of stay-
ing happier: Testing the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention Model.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 670-680.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship
between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 138-161.
Stellar, J. E., John-Henderson, N., Anderson, C. L., Gordon, A. M.,
McNeil, G. D., & Keltner, D. (2015). Positive affect and mark-
ers of inflammation: Discrete positive emotions predict lower
levels of inflammatory cytokines. Emotion, 15, 129-133.
Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants
of gratitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,
233-236.
Tucker, K. L. (2007). Getting the most out of life: An examina-
tion of appreciation, targets of appreciation, and sensitivity to
reward in happier and less happy individuals. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 26, 791-825.
Tudge, J. R. H., & Freitas, L. B. L. (2017). Developing grati-
tude: An introduction. In J. R. H. Tudge & L. B. L. Freitas
(Eds.), Developing gratitude in children and adolescents
(pp. 1-24). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781316863121
Watkins, P. C., & Bell, J. (2017). Current theories and research in
the psychology of gratitude. In M. A. Warren & S. I. Donaldson
(Eds.), Scientific advances in positive psychology (pp. 103-130).
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Watson, D. (2002). Positive affectivity: The disposition to experi-
ence pleasurable emotional states. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 106-119). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
Westfall, J., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Statistically controlling for con-
founding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS ONE, 11.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152719
Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude
and well-being: A review and theoretical integration. Clinical
Psychology Review, 30, 890-905.
Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Maltby, J. (2008). Gratitude uniquely
predicts satisfaction with life: Incremental validity above the
domains and facets of the five factor model. Personality and
Individual Differences, 45, 49-54.
Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., & Joseph, S. (2008).
Conceptualizing gratitude and appreciation as a unitary per-
sonality trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
621-632.
Author Biography
N. S. Fagley, PhD is an associate professor of Psychology at
Rutgers University. Her recent research focuses on elaborating the
theory of appreciation—with a focus on its definition and measure-
ment, its causes and consequences, and effective techniques or
activities to foster feelings of appreciation.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
