Content uploaded by Y Joel Wong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Y Joel Wong on Dec 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Y Joel Wong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Y Joel Wong on Dec 12, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
-
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
OPEN ACCESS
Gratitude in Context: Proposing the Dyadic Process Model
of Interpersonal Gratitude
Alexis Pandelios
| Y. Joel Wong
Department of Applied Psychology in Education and Research Methodology, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Correspondence: Alexis Pandelios (alpandel@iu.edu)
Received: 25 November 2023 | Revised: 27 August 2024 | Accepted: 4 November 2024
Funding: The authors received no specic funding for this work.
Keywords: communication in relationships | dyadic communication | expressing gratitude | gratitude exchanges | gratitude in relationships | interpersonal
gratitude | interpersonal process
ABSTRACT
Research has suggested that the quality of gratitude exchanges varies, with some exchanges resulting in positive outcomes and
others resulting in null and negative outcomes for intimates. However, a current conceptual model outlining the conditional
nature of interpersonal gratitude exchanges is lacking within the literature. In this paper, we introduce the Dyadic Process
Model of Interpersonal Gratitude, an updated conceptual model that delineates the boundary conditions of interpersonal
gratitude exchanges. Using the model, we propose that the benets associated with interpersonal gratitude expressions depend
on the context in which gratitude operates, articulating the inuence of communication factors and contextual factors on
interpersonal gratitude exchange outcomes. Drawing from the Dyadic Process Model of Interpersonal Gratitude, we provide
implications for future research and gratitude‐based interventions.
1
|
Introduction
Not all gratitude exchanges are created equal. Indeed, a large
body of literature has documented associations between inter-
personal gratitude and various positive outcomes for exchange
partners, such as increased relationship satisfaction (Algoe,
Fredickson, and Gable 2013; Park et al. 2019), commitment (Joel
et al. 2013; Lambert et al. 2010), afliative behaviors (Algoe
et al. 2020; Williams and Bartlett 2015), relationship mainte-
nance behaviors (Kubacka et al. 2011; Lambert and Fin-
cham 2011), positive affect and life satisfaction (Algoe and
Zhaoyang 2016; Chang, Dwyer, and Algoe 2022), and im-
provements in mental health (Toepfer, Cichy, and Peters 2012;
Wong et al. 2018). However, recent research has demonstrated
that interpersonal gratitude exchanges can sometimes have null
and negative impacts within specic contexts (e.g., Cazzell
et al. 2022; Ksenofontov and Becker 2020; Leong et al. 2020;
McNulty and Dugas 2019). Despite this growing literature sug-
gesting that gratitude exchanges may be contextually bound, no
conceptual model to date has attempted to incorporate this
dynamic lens in interpersonal gratitude theorizing. Looking
under the proverbial hood of gratitude exchanges, in this paper,
we address this gap by introducing the Dyadic Process Model of
Interpersonal Gratitude, a dynamic interpersonal gratitude
model which aims to explain how communication factors and
contextual factors inuence the quality of a gratitude exchange.
This model contributes to the literature by expanding upon
current interpersonal gratitude theorizing in several ways. First,
our model goes beyond current conceptual models by articu-
lating relevant factors that inuence gratitude exchange out-
comes. Indeed, although dominant interpersonal gratitude
theorizing focuses on how gratitude functions in interpersonal
relationships (i.e., to connect individuals and strengthen
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2024 The Author(s). Social and Personality Psychology Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024; 18:e70024 1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70024
interpersonal commitment by reinforcing the value of rela-
tionship partners; Algoe 2012; Fredrickson 2004), it provides
little theorizing as to when gratitude is most impactful in
interpersonal relationships. Second, our model is the rst to
address the entire process of a gratitude exchange. In our view, a
gratitude exchange is a unique and rich communication act.
However, the communication dimension of gratitude exchanges
has been underemphasized by prevailing interpersonal gratitude
theorizing. Drawing from disparate bodies of literature, we
remedy this by using the Dyadic Process Model to uncover what
happens within a gratitude exchange that results in specic
outcomes. Finally, our model goes beyond the elements of a
gratitude message itself. A high‐quality gratitude expression is
not guaranteed to result in positive outcomes. For example,
research suggests that individuals vary in their levels of recep-
tivity to gratitude expressions from others (Baker 2021; Parker
et al. 2017; N. Zhang et al. 2018), which could inuence ex-
change outcomes. As such, our model not only zooms into
gratitude exchanges by attempting to uncover the communica-
tion elements that may inuence gratitude exchanges, but it also
zooms out of these exchanges to understand what contextual
factors might be relevant in determining exchange outcomes.
2
|
Scope of the Model
Before describing the Dyadic Process Model, several limits of the
model must be noted. First, the model focuses on gratitude
exchanges in close interpersonal relationships. The empirical
literature has documented the benets of gratitude within
various relationship contexts, including in relationships with
strangers (Algoe et al. 2020; Williams and Bartlett 2015) and in
relationships with close others such as colleagues (Fehr
et al. 2017; Kaplan et al. 2014), friends (Algoe, Haidt, and Ga-
ble 2008; Lambert and Fincham 2011), and romantic partners
(Algoe, Fredickson, and Gable 2013; Kubacka et al. 2011).
However, because exchanges with previously unknown others
are qualitatively different than those in close interpersonal re-
lationships (Berg and Clark 1986), we limit the scope of the
Dyadic Process Model to gratitude exchanges within established
interpersonal relationships only. To this end, we dene rela-
tionship partner as an individual with whom one has a close,
established relationship of personal signicance, which can
include romantic partners, family members, friends, and col-
leagues. Next, the model focuses on interpersonal and intra-
personal outcomes associated with oral and text‐based gratitude
exchanges between an expresser (the person expressing grati-
tude) and a receiver (the expresser's benefactor who receives the
gratitude message). An expression of gratitude can be delivered
via many mediums, including non‐verbally, through gift‐giving
and acts of service, and verbally, through oral exchanges, writ-
ten notes, and electronic messages. In fact, research has
demonstrated the value of each of these forms of gratitude
communication in supporting connectedness (Algoe, Haidt, and
Gable 2008; Algoe et al., 2020; Kumar and Epley 2018; Park
et al. 2021; Walsh et al. 2022). However, despite the value of
non‐verbal forms of gratitude expression, the Dyadic Process
Model highlights the transactional nature of oral and text‐based
gratitude expressions specically. Finally, we focus on
describing outcomes associated with dyadic gratitude exchanges
in which a gratitude message expresser and receiver are engaged
in an interpersonal interaction. Certainly, interpersonal grati-
tude can result in benets without the occurrence of a dyadic
interaction, such as has been demonstrated in research using
gratitude letter writing interventions that did not include a letter
sharing component (e.g., Toepfer, Cichy, and Peters 2012).
However, we focus here on describing the richly relational
process that occurs in a dyadic exchange between individuals.
3
|
Theoretical Underpinnings and Extensions
The Dyadic Process Model of Interpersonal Gratitude draws
from and extends both models of interpersonal gratitude and
interpersonal process, specically Algoe's (2012) nd‐bind‐and‐
remind theory of gratitude and Reis and Shaver's (1988) in-
timacy process model. The prevailing theoretical lens through
which interpersonal gratitude has been investigated, Algoe's
nd‐bind‐and‐remind theory proposes that gratitude is an
emotion with adaptive interpersonal benet that functions to
connect individuals to high‐quality partners and to strengthen
interpersonal commitment by reinforcing the value of rela-
tionship partners. Using a functional analysis of gratitude,
Algoe (2012) notes that, like other positive emotions, gratitude
functions to draw individuals to opportunities in their envi-
ronment, like opportunities for interpersonal connection in the
case of gratitude (see also Fredrickson 2004). The Dyadic Pro-
cess Model aligns with the central hypotheses of the nd‐bind‐
and‐remind model of gratitude, while also building on the
model by introducing communication and contextual factors
that we believe determine whether gratitude does indeed result
in a social binding. That is, we agree that gratitude does indeed
allow us to nd and bind with social contacts, if conditions are
ideal; however, we posit that conditions are often not ideally
suited to facilitate these benets.
Establishing a conditional framing of gratitude exchanges, our
model also draws from Reis and Shaver's (1988) intimacy pro-
cess model. According to the intimacy process model, intimate
transactions between partners are inuenced by a collection of
individual factors, including each partners' motives, needs,
goals, and fears and their interpretative lters, and communi-
cation factors, such as the self‐disclosure itself and a message
receiver's behavioral response to a disclosure. In total, the model
uses a conditional framework to uncover factors that determine
whether self‐disclosures will result in an expresser feeling un-
derstood and cared for as a result of their disclosure. There are
clear connections between the Dyadic Process Model and the
intimacy process model proposed by Reis and Shaver (1988):
Our model also uses a conditional and transactional framework
to understand how communication and contextual factors result
in different outcomes associated with an interpersonal ex-
change. However, our model is unique in several ways. Most
importantly, we believe gratitude expressions are conceptually
distinct from other types of intimate self‐disclosures (see
Lambert et al. 2010; Lambert and Fincham 2011). Gratitude
expressions are markedly dyadic and relational, as the aim of
these expressions is not only to share elements of oneself with a
partner (as is the case in a standard self‐disclosure) but to also
share one's positive perception of a partner with that individual.
2 of 10 Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Given this dyadic and relational nature of gratitude expressions,
we propose that the communication of gratitude is uniquely
inuenced by the factors we propose in our model. Moreover,
our model extends the intimacy process model by considering
additional contextual factors that, in addition to individual
factors, may inuence interpersonal exchanges, including rela-
tionship factors and cultural factors. In total, while borrowing
from both Algoe's (2012) nd‐bind‐and‐remind theory of grati-
tude and Reis and Shaver's (1988) intimacy process model, we
believe the uniqueness of the Dyadic Process Model of Inter-
personal Gratitude comes from integrating element of these
models and extending each to complement the other.
4
|
The Dyadic Process Model of Interpersonal
Gratitude
The Dyadic Process Model posits that the interplay of commu-
nication factors and contextual factors in a gratitude exchange
inuences the outcomes associated with that exchange (see
Figure 1). Specically, we use the Dyadic Process Model to
propose that exchange outcomes are inuenced by how grati-
tude is expressed and how each individual reacts to an ex-
change, at the communication level, and by the expresser's and
receiver's person‐centered factors, relationship factors, and
cultural factors, at the contextual level. Said another way, we
posit that both the expresser and receiver brings elements of
themselves, their relationship, and their culture to a gratitude
exchange, which contribute to how they communicate with one
another and, in turn, the outcomes associated with their ex-
change. We hypothesize that these factors inuence both
interpersonal outcomes (related to one's interpersonal rela-
tionship; e.g., changes in relational intimacy) and intrapersonal
outcomes (related to oneself; e.g., changes in life satisfaction). In
the proceeding sections, we provide an overview of the literature
supporting the proposed elements of the Dyadic Process Model.
When research providing direct support for the model hypoth-
eses is not available, we pull from related literature to draw
tentative conclusions. Future directions for research are dis-
cussed when applicable.
4.1
|
Communication Factors
Dyadic exchanges are complex communication acts, the out-
comes of which are propelled by various communication factors
(Floyd 2019; Reis and Shaver 1988). Using the Dyadic Process
Model, we propose that communication factors inuence dyadic
gratitude exchanges in two important ways: First, we posit that
the content of a gratitude expression (i.e., the words used to
express gratitude) and the process dimensions of an expression
(i.e., the nonverbal cues accompanying a gratitude expression)
inuence the receiver's reaction to the expression (path a).
Second, we theorize that the receiver's reaction to a gratitude
expression inuences the expresser's response to the exchange
(path b). According to the model, these exchange reactions
contribute to interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes associ-
ated with a gratitude exchange for both expressers and receivers
(path c). Here, we distinguish between internal reactions (i.e.,
perceptions of a message and of one's exchange partner) and
external reactions (i.e., non‐verbal and verbal communications
in response to an exchange). Broadly, we propose that internal
reactions inuence exchange outcomes, while external reactions
inuence exchange partner perceptions of the exchange. In to-
tal, the model highlights the reciprocal relationship between
individuals engaged in a communication exchange, proposing
that each individual's communication acts inuences the other's
and, in turn, their ultimate exchange outcomes.
4.1.1
|
Gratitude Expression: Message Content and
Process Dimensions (Path A)
4.1.1.1
|
Message Content. Initial ndings support the
idea that the content of a gratitude message can impact the
outcomes associated with that message. In the rst study to
evaluate the role of gratitude message content on expression
outcomes, Algoe, Kurtz, and Hilaire (2016) found that the in-
clusion of other‐praising language (highlighting the receiver's
positive attributes in performing a generous act), but not self‐
benet‐focused language (highlighting the ways in which the
receiver's generous act benetted the expresser), in a gratitude
FIGURE 1
|Dyadic process model of interpersonal gratitude. This gure outlines the proposed relationships between the components of the
dyadic process model of interpersonal gratitude and model outcomes.
3 of 10
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
expression was associated with increased perception of partner
responsiveness, positive mood, and felt love among message
receivers. These ndings were extended in a follow‐up investi-
gation by Park et al. (2021). Comparing outcomes associated
with responsiveness‐highlighting expressions (focused on how
the receiver met the expresser's needs) and cost‐highlighting
gratitude expressions (focused on the cost accrued by the
receiver associated with performing a generous act), Park et al.
(2021) found that responsiveness‐highlighting expressions were
associated with more positive evaluation of the gratitude mes-
sage received and of one's relationship than cost‐highlighting
gratitude expressions.
Research has not yet explicitly conrmed the link between
message content and the receiver's exchange outcomes through
the receiver's reactions to a gratitude message as proposed by
the Dyadic Process Model (i.e., paths a, b, and c of our model for
receivers). However, in both studies described above, message
content was signicantly related to receiver reaction variables
(i.e., perception of partner responsiveness in Algoe, Kurtz, and
Hilaire 2016 and evaluation of the gratitude message received in
Park et al. 2021) and interpersonal and intrapersonal receiver
outcome variables (i.e., positive mood and felt love in Algoe,
Kurtz, and Hilaire 2016 and evaluation of the relationship in
Park et al. 2021), suggesting that message content is relevant to
both outcomes. Research is needed to verify the mediation effect
for receiver outcomes proposed by the Dyadic Process Model.
Other future research directions related to message content
include exploring the inuence of other types of gratitude
message content on exchange outcomes. For example, one
potentially inuential content element of a gratitude expression
is the level of specicity used in a gratitude message. Research
from the educational communication literature specically has
provided evidence that specic praise is more impactful than
less specic praise (Chalk and Bizo 2004; Myers, Simonsen, and
Sugai 2011; Sutherland, Wehby, and Copeland 2000; Thompson
et al. 2012). Drawing from these ndings, we hypothesize that
specicity in a gratitude message may be particularly mean-
ingful as gratitude messages that are more specic (i.e., mes-
sages that include detailed descriptions, references to
identiable actions or objects, and/or narrative expansion) may
be perceived by receivers to be more responsive and sincere,
possibly because these messages signal to receivers that the
expressers remember and truly appreciate the receivers and
their acts of kindness. Further research is needed to test this
proposed hypothesis. We invite researchers to propose addi-
tional content dimensions that may contribute to differential
gratitude receiver reactions and exchange outcomes.
4.1.1.2
|
Process Dimensions. No studies to date have
evaluated the role of nonverbal communication on gratitude
message outcomes. However, the communications literature has
documented the importance of nonverbal communication in
dyadic exchanges. Indeed, an extensive body of literature has
documented that individuals who perform specic nonverbal
actions in interpersonal exchanges—including increasing
proximity, touching, gazing, leaning forward, and being
emotionally expressive—are evaluated as more affectionate,
specically in Western cultures (e.g., Burgoon et al. 1984;
Burgoon and Newton 1991; Floyd and Burgoon 1999). Overall,
this literature suggests that messages of affection that include
corresponding nonverbal cues connoting affection are more
likely to be perceived positively by message receivers: The
congruence between the content of the message and the
process by which the message is expressed results in a sincere
and meaningful message.
Research is needed to assess the potential impact of nonverbal
cues on gratitude expression reactions and outcomes specif-
ically. Future investigations should also consider the role of
culture in associating nonverbal cues with exchange outcomes,
as nonverbal communication is a dimension of interpersonal
communication that lacks generalizability across cultures
(Burleson et al. 2019; Matsumoto 2006; Q. Zhang and
Wills 2016). Finally, highlighting the dynamic nature of grati-
tude exchanges, investigations are needed to determine if and
how message receivers' nonverbal cues impact expressers' re-
actions to an exchange (i.e., path b of the Dyadic Process
Model). For example, future investigations might ask how the
expressers' perception of an exchange might be impacted if a
receiver responds to the expression without using culturally
salient nonverbal cues of affection or warmth.
4.1.2
|
Exchange Reactions
4.1.2.1
|
Receiver Reaction to the Gratitude Expression
(Path C, Receivers). Findings from the interpersonal grati-
tude literature suggest that receiver reactions are important in
determining gratitude exchange outcomes for receivers. In one
study evaluating the role of perceived partner responsiveness
(i.e., the degree to which an individual feels cared for, validated,
and understood by a relationship partner; Reis, Clark, and
Holmes 2004) on exchange outcomes, Algoe, Fredickson, and
Gable (2013) found that receiver ratings of expresser respon-
siveness following a gratitude message were positively associ-
ated with relationship satisfaction at a 6‐month follow‐up:
Those who rated their partner as more responsive following
an exchange reported experiencing more relationship
satisfaction. Replicating and extending these ndings, Algoe
and Zhaoyang (2016) found that perceived partner
responsiveness following a gratitude exchange inuenced the
effects of gratitude exchanges on measured outcomes.
Specically, when perceived expresser responsiveness was
high, receivers reported experiencing increases in relationship
evaluation, positive affect, and satisfaction with life. However,
when perceived expresser responsiveness was low, gratitude
exchanges had no signicant effect on the study outcomes.
These studies suggest that a receiver's perception of their
partner after receiving a gratitude message is important in
determining exchange outcomes.
Receiver reactions to a message itself have also been found to
impact gratitude expression outcomes, as was demonstrated in
one study by Leong et ;al. (2020). Investigating connections
between perceived message sincerity and relationship satisfac-
tion following a gratitude exchange, results from this study
indicated that when messages were perceived as less sincere,
there was no resulting increase in relationship satisfaction
among receivers, and gratitude messages perceived as less
sincere resulted in decreases in relationship satisfaction among
4 of 10 Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
some participants. Additional research is needed to verify these
connections in more diverse samples, as all studies described
here drew data from heterosexual couples, and Leong
et al. (2020) collected data exclusively from married partners
living in Hong Kong.
4.1.2.2
|
Expresser Reaction to the Receiver's Response
(Paths B & C, Expressers). Explaining the relationship be-
tween interpersonal disclosures and positive outcomes, some
research has suggested that receiver reactions to disclosures are
central in determining the outcomes associated with these dis-
closures (e.g., Laurenceau, Barrett, and Pietromonaco 1998;
Pagani et al. 2020). For example, in the literature describing
capitalization (i.e., the interpersonal process that occurs when a
person shares good news with another person), researchers have
documented that sharing with a relationship partner has the
most benet when a message receiver has a positive reaction to
the exchange (see Gable and Reis 2010 for a review). Little
research has investigated the inuence of a gratitude expresser's
reaction to a receiver's response on exchange outcomes (i.e.,
paths b and c for expressers in the Dyadic Process Model).
Among exceptions is one study by Baker (2021) that found when
gratitude expressions were unreciprocated by a receiver, ex-
pressers reported having more positive evaluations of their own
value as partners and more negative evaluations of their part-
ner's value in the relationship, a discrepancy which was asso-
ciated with decreased relationship commitment. Based on these
results, reciprocating gratitude is one potentially meaningful
way receivers could respond to the expresser in a gratitude ex-
change, which could, in turn, increase positive exchange out-
comes for expressers.
Clearly, more research is needed to understand how expressers'
reactions to gratitude exchanges are inuenced by receiver's
reactions to an exchange (path b). However, some tentative
hypotheses about this relationship can be offered, providing
opportunities for future research. First, drawing again from the
literature on capitalization, receivers of gratitude messages
could impact their partners' positive outcomes by using active‐
constructive responses (e.g., expressing their positive percep-
tion of and/or interest in their partner's message and showing
support for their partner; Gable et al. 2004) following their
partner's message delivery (see Pagani et al. 2020). Second, as
noted previously, the perceived responsiveness of a partner
following an expression of gratitude has been found to inu-
ence outcomes for message receivers (Algoe, Fredickson, and
Gable 2013; Algoe and Zhaoyang 2016). It could be the case
that perceived responsiveness is also important in under-
standing expressers' outcomes in a gratitude exchange: that is,
expressers may experience more positive outcomes associated
with a gratitude exchange when a receiver's reaction is
perceived as more responsive. Indicators of responsiveness
enacted by the receiver could include the receiver engaging in
affectionate touch (Jolink, Chang, and Algoe 2022) or demon-
strating nonverbal cues associated with active listening (Itz-
chakov, Reis, and Weinstein 2021) during or following a
gratitude message. Future research should address these and
other hypotheses related to expressers' perception of the re-
ceivers' reaction to a gratitude expression, which will
contribute to a more complete and dyadic and dynamic un-
derstanding of gratitude exchanges.
4.2
|
Contextual Factors
Zooming out of the exchange itself, next, we turn to the pro-
posed role of contextual factors on gratitude exchanges. Spe-
cically, the Dyadic Process Model posits that contextual factors
inuence all communication factors proposed in the model,
including how gratitude is expressed and how both individuals
in a dyad react to a gratitude exchange (paths a and b). High-
lighting the interplay between communication and contextual
factors, we further propose that contextual factors also play a
role in determining exchange outcomes (path c). Here, we
propose three broad contextual factors that potentially impact
interpersonal gratitude exchanges: person‐centered factors,
relationship factors, and cultural factors.
4.2.1
|
Person‐Centered Factors
No research to date has made explicit connections between
person‐centered factors (dened here as individual traits or
dispositions) and gratitude communication factors, as is pro-
posed by the Dyadic Process Model. However, research on
gratitude more broadly and interpersonal communication sug-
gests that person‐centered factors may indeed inuence grati-
tude exchanges. For example, research has shown that
attachment style contributes to both how gratitude is experi-
enced (Mikulincer, Shaver, and Slav 2006; L. Zhang et al. 2017)
and how individuals communicate in interpersonal contexts
(e.g., Anders and Tucker 2000; Beck et al. 2014; Guerrero,
Farinelli, and McEwan 2009; Mikulincer and Nachshon 1991).
Considering these disparate bodies of work together, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that attachment style may inuence
gratitude exchange interactions. For example, individuals with
an avoidant attachment style may have more difculty crafting a
meaningful gratitude message (inuencing path a of the Dyadic
Process Model), given their tendency toward emotional isolation
of self from others (Mikulincer and Shaver 2003; Shaver and
Hazan 1993) and their tendency to experience gratitude less
often (Mikulincer, Shaver, and Slav 2006; Vollmann, Sprang,
and van den Brink 2019; L. Zhang et al. 2017). Attachment style
might also inuence both expressers' and receivers' reactions to
an exchange. For example, if a gratitude exchange is perceived
as an attempt to increase connectivity and, thus, decrease per-
sonal autonomy, receivers and expressers with avoidant
attachment styles may be more likely respond with interper-
sonal distance and, thus, may be more likely to have null or
negative outcomes associated with an exchange (see paths b and
c of the Dyadic Process Model). However, other forms of mes-
sage and response delivery could challenge attachment insecu-
rity and result in positive exchange outcomes for those with
avoidant attachment styles (see Arriaga et al. 2018). Other
person‐centered factors with potential implications for gratitude
exchanges include personality traits, with research similarly
connecting the Big‐Five personality traits to experiencing of
gratitude and elements of interpersonal communication (e.g.,
Frederickx and Hofmans 2014; Jensen 2016; McCullough,
Emmons, and Tsang 2002; Parker et al. 2017; Sims 2016; see also
Wood, Froh, and Geraghty 2010). We invite researchers to
propose and test additional person‐centered factors that may be
relevant to gratitude exchanges.
5 of 10
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4.2.2
|
Relationship Factors
Dened here as relationship characteristics, dynamics, and
partner perceptions, research has also provided some initial
support for connections between relationship factors and grat-
itude exchanges. Among ndings, Park et al. (2021) provided
evidence that relationship duration is one relationship charac-
teristic that impacts gratitude communications. Specically, the
researchers found that relationship length moderated the asso-
ciation between gratitude message content (i.e., use of cost‐
highlighting expressions vs. responsiveness‐highlighting ex-
pressions) and positive feelings about the gratitude message
received, whereby cost‐highlighting expressions were associated
with more positive feelings about a partner's gratitude message
among those with shorter relationships. These ndings provide
tentative support for the impact of relationship duration on path
a of the Dyadic Process Model. However, the impact of other
relationship characteristics on gratitude exchanges, such as the
inuence of relationship closeness and relationship type (e.g.,
friend, relationship partner, or colleague) on message delivery
and reactions, should be evaluated by future research.
Other studies have suggested that relationship dynamics might
impact gratitude exchanges. Focusing on the inuence of
workplace power dynamics on expressers' outcomes following
an exchange, Ksenofontov and Becker (2020) found that,
compared to individuals in a neutral response condition, in-
dividuals assigned to express thanks to an unfair workplace
supervisor were less likely to protest in response to unfair
workplace behaviors perpetrated by that supervisor. These re-
sults suggest that, when there is a hierarchical relationship such
as between an employee and supervisor, gratitude expressions
can help to maintain the status quo by disempowering those in
low‐power groups in the face of detrimental conditions. These
dynamics could also be present in other types of interpersonal
relationships. For example, Cazzell et al. (2022) found that
excessive gratitude (i.e., gratitude that exceeds received support)
was associated with lower levels of psychological well‐being,
commitment, and sexual satisfaction and higher levels of
aggression while decient gratitude (i.e., gratitude that falls
short of received support) was associated with poorer physical
health and lower sexual satisfaction.
Finally, partner perceptions might also inuence gratitude ex-
changes. Investigating the role of perceived motives of a part-
ner's sacrice on gratitude and perceived responsiveness,
Visserman et al. (2018) found that participants who perceived
their partners' relationship sacrices as being motivated by
partner‐approach motives (i.e., the individual made a sacrice
to benet their partner) experienced more gratitude and
perceived their partner to be more responsive; by contrast,
participants who perceived their partners' relationship sacrices
as being motivated by partner‐avoidance motives (i.e., the in-
dividual made a sacrice to reduce the likelihood of an negative
response by their partner), for example, experienced no such
changes in gratitude and perceived responsiveness. Overall,
though not directly testing the proposed relationships in our
model, these studies provide tentative support for the idea that
pre‐existing relationship dynamics and perceptions of one's
partner inuence how partners might experience gratitude in
their relationships (Visserman et al. 2018) and the impact of
gratitude (Cazzell et al. 2022) and gratitude exchanges (Kseno-
fontov and Becker 2020). Future studies should explicitly test
how these factors inuence how gratitude is expressed and
received, and in turn, how these gratitude expressions impact
relationship partners' exchange outcomes as proposed by the
Dyadic Process Model.
4.2.3
|
Cultural Factors
Culture, specically dened in terms of nationality, has been
found to inuence gratitude exchanges. Differences in the
communication of gratitude specically have been documented
between individuals from high‐context cultures (i.e., cultures in
which communication is often indirect, implicit, and nonverbal)
and low‐context cultures (i.e., cultures in which communication
is more direct, confrontational, and explicit; Hall 1976). For
example, focusing on differences in gratitude communications
between individuals from China (a high‐context culture) and
the United States (a low‐context culture), Bello et al. (2010)
found that individuals from China relied more on indirect, high‐
context expressions of gratitude (e.g., sacrice, internal reec-
tion, and self‐improvement) while those from the United States
used more direct expressions of gratitude (e.g., written affection,
favors, and expression of thanks). Cross‐cultural differences in
gratitude expression reactions have also been documented in
the literature, with these studies drawing instead from
communication differences among those from cultures charac-
terized as individualist (values include independence and per-
sonal autonomy) and collectivist (values include connectedness
to ingroup members and interdependence; Hofstede 2001). For
example, in a study of gratitude reactions among Chinese and
European Canadian participants, N. Zhang et al. (2018) found
that Chinese participants reported experiencing more negative
emotions in reaction to receiving a message of gratitude from a
close friend compared to European Canadian participants, who
experienced more positive emotions in reaction to receiving
a similar gratitude message. In explaining these ndings,
N. Zhang et al. (2018) noted that, consistent with values of a
more collectivist culture, Chinese people are commonly moti-
vated to provide care to others in close relationships with the
knowledge that care will be reciprocated, making an expression
of gratitude unnecessary (Potter 1988). According to the au-
thors, these values are in contrast to those of the more indi-
vidualist culture of the European Canadian participants, who
might be more likely to expect verbal acknowledgment of their
actions. Similar results were found in a study by Chang and
Algoe (2020) investigating differences in methods of gratitude
communication and reactions to gratitude exchanges between
individuals from Taiwan (dened as a more collectivist, high‐
context culture) and individuals in the United States (dened
as a more individualist, low‐context culture).
Though nationality is just a single element of culture, this
research provides initial evidence that culture has a notable
inuence on the communication of gratitude. Future research
should specically focus on how elements of culture inuence
outcomes associated with a cultural mismatch between a grat-
itude expresser and receiver. For example, in the case of such a
cultural mismatch, an expresser from a lower‐context culture
6 of 10 Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
might be particularly effusive and detailed in their gratitude
expressions, yet a receiver from a higher‐context culture might
perceive this expression to be inappropriate and insincere, as
such verbal gratitude expressions may be considered unnec-
essary (path a of the Dyadic Process Model). In this case, the
receiver may have a less positive response to the exchange,
which we predict would leave the expresser perceiving the re-
ceiver's response as lacking responsiveness (path b). By contrast,
if an expresser is from a relatively higher‐context culture than
the receiver, the receiver might perceive the expresser's grati-
tude expression as insufciently responsive or genuine, as it
may lack the detail that an individual from a lower‐context
culture might expect from a gratitude message. Empirical in-
vestigations of these hypotheses is needed to better understand
how both individuals' culture in a dyad impacts outcomes for
exchange partners.
5
|
Summary
Gratitude exchanges within relationships are contextually
complex: Outcomes associated with a gratitude exchange
depend on factors within that exchange. The Dyadic Process
Model attempts to make sense of this complexity, which has not
been thoroughly accounted for by previous interpersonal grati-
tude theorizing. In this concluding section, we discuss several
limitations of the Dyadic Process Model and provide practical
implications of the model.
5.1
|
Limitations
Although the Dyadic Process Model provides progress towards a
more nuanced conceptualization of interpersonal gratitude ex-
changes than has been previously proposed, several limitations
of the model should be noted. Most notable, although care was
taken to produce a model which reects the extant interper-
sonal gratitude literature, not all components of the Dyadic
Process Model have empirical support. Future research is
needed to empirically assess the theorized relationships among
constructs in this model.
Additionally, the Dyadic Process Model focuses on specic dyadic
gratitude exchanges, explicating outcomes associated with dyadic
oral and text‐based gratitude expressions delivered in the context
of close interpersonal relationships. However, interpersonal
gratitude can have notable impacts outside of this context. For
example, research has shown that gratitude expressed by a
stranger can result in positive perceptions of that unknown in-
dividual, outside of an established relationship (Bartlett
et al. 2012; Bartlett and DeSteno 2006; Williams and Bar-
tlett 2015). Other research has noted that positive outcomes can
result from interpersonal gratitude outside of the context of a
dyadic exchange. For example, gratitude letter writing in-
terventions have been shown to result in positive outcomes
without the presence of a response from the receiver (Kini
et al. 2016; Toepfer, Cichy, and Peters 2012; Wong et al. 2018).
Finally, nonverbal modes of expressing gratitude (such gift‐giving
and acts of service) are more common among some individuals
than oral gratitude communications (e.g., see cultural differences
in gratitude communication; Beichen and Murshed 2015). While
the Dyadic Process Model does not account for these specic
contexts, using the model as a framework, other researchers could
identify factors that inuence outcomes in these different rela-
tional and communication contexts.
5.2
|
Practical Implications
In addition to informing future research, the Dyadic Process
Model can be used to inform future gratitude interventions.
Gratitude‐based mental health interventions have grown sub-
stantially in popularity over the past 2 decades, with gratitude
interventions frequently including interpersonal gratitude ele-
ments (Toepfer, Cichy, and Peters 2012; Wong 2023; Wong
et al. 2018). Based on the available research, interpersonal
gratitude interventions can have implications for assorted out-
comes. However, again returning to the conditional framing of
the Dyadic Process Model, we propose that not all interpersonal
gratitude exchanges are equivalent: Some exchanges result in
positive outcomes while others result in null or negative out-
comes. We propose that the Dyadic Process Model can be used
to build more intentional interpersonal gratitude interventions
that account for and address potential areas of an exchange that
might result in less than favorable outcomes and reinforce areas
of an exchange that might result in more favorable outcomes.
For example, by better understanding what communication
factors inuence gratitude exchanges, interventionists could
model ideal exchanges which facilitate interpersonal and
intrapersonal growth. Such information could be used in
interpersonal gratitude letter writing interventions. For
example, a list of expression elements that have been shown to
increase favorable outcomes could be included in gratitude
letter writing instructions for participants to reference when
writing their own letters. As another example, in relationship
counseling, psychotherapists could coach members on how to
express gratitude to one another and how to receive gratitude
messages graciously, thus enhancing benets for clients. Future
research is needed to verify the hypotheses set forth by the
Dyadic Process Model and to determine the specic elements of
the interpersonal dyadic exchange which might result in boos-
ted outcomes. However, the Dyadic Process Model provides a
step forward towards framing interpersonal gratitude in-
terventions within a contextual and transactional lens.
6
|
Conclusion
Expressing thanks to a relationship partner can have profound
interpersonal and intrapersonal impacts for both the message
expresser and receiver (Algoe and Zhaoyang 2016; Kubacka
et al. 2011; Wong et al. 2018). However, research has suggested
that context matters in determining the outcomes of these ex-
changes (Baker 2021; Cazzell et al. 2022; McNulty and Dugas
2019; N. Zhang et al. 2018). Addressing the conditional nature of
gratitude exchanges, the Dyadic Process Model of Interpersonal
Gratitude provides a holistic and nuanced model of interpersonal
gratitude, proposing that each gratitude exchange is impacted by
various communication and contextual factors. As provided
throughout this paper, we propose that these factors inuence
7 of 10
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
how and when interpersonal gratitude expressions result in
positive outcomes for relationship partners. We hope that the
Dyadic Process Model will be used to expand the interpersonal
gratitude literature and to enhance gratitude interventions.
Conicts of Interest
The authors declare no conicts of interest.
Data Availability Statement
Data was not generated or analyzed for the current project.
References
Algoe, S. B. 2012. “Find, Remind, and Bind: The Functions of Gratitude
in Everyday Relationships.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass
6, no. 6: 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x.
Algoe, S. B., P. C. Dwyer, A. Younge, and C. Oveis. 2020. “A New
Perspective on the Social Functions of Emotions: Gratitude and the
Witnessing Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Inter-
personal Relations and Group Processes 119, no. 1: 40–74. https://doi.org/
10.1037/pspi0000202.
Algoe, S. B., B. L. Fredickson, and S. L. Gable. 2013. “The Social
Functions of the Emotion of Gratitude via Expression.” Emotion 13, no.
4: 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032701.
Algoe, S. B., J. Haidt, and S. L. Gable. 2008. “Beyond Reciprocity:
Gratitude and Relationships in Everyday Life.” Emotion 8, no. 3: 425–
429. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425.
Algoe, S. B., L. E. Kurtz, and N. M. Hilaire. 2016. “Putting the ‘You’ in
‘Thank You’: Examining Other‐Praising Behavior as the Active Rela-
tional Ingredient in Expressed Gratitude.” Social Psychological and
Personality Science 7, no. 7: 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550616651681.
Algoe, S. B., and R. Zhaoyang. 2016. “Positive Psychology in Context:
Effects of Expressing Gratitude in Ongoing Relationships Depend on
Perceptions of Enactor Responsiveness.” Journal of Positive Psychology
11, no. 4: 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1117131.
Anders, S. L., and J. S. Tucker. 2000. “Adult Attachment Style, Inter-
personal Communication Competence, and Social Support.” Personal
Relationships 7, no. 4: 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.
2000.tb00023.x.
Arriaga, X. B., M. Kumashiro, J. A. Simpson, and N. C. Overall. 2018.
“Revising Working Models Across Time: Relationship Situations That
Enhance Attachment Security.” Personality and Social Psychology Re-
view 22, no. 1: 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317705257.
Baker, L. R. 2021. “Gratitude Increases Recipients' Commitment
Through Automatic Partner Evaluations, yet Unreciprocated Gratitude
Decreases Commitment Through Deliberative Evaluations.” Social
Psychological and Personality Science 12, no. 7: 1402–1411. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550620967817.
Bartlett, M. Y., P. Condon, J. Cruz, J. Baumann, and D. Desteno. 2012.
“Gratitude: Prompting Behaviors That Build Relationships.” Cogni-
tion & Emotion 26, no. 1: 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.
561297.
Bartlett, M. Y., and D. DeSteno. 2006. “Gratitude and Prosocial
Behavior: Helping When It Costs You.” Psychological Science 17, no. 4:
319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x.
Beck, L. A., P. R. Pietromonaco, C. C. DeVito, S. I. Powers, and A. M.
Boyle. 2014. “Congruence Between Spouses' Perceptions and Observers'
Ratings of Responsiveness: The Role of Attachment Avoidance.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40, no. 2: 164–174. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167213507779.
Beichen, L., and F. Murshed. 2015. “Culture, Expressions of Romantic
Love, and Gift‐Giving.” Journal of International Business Research 14,
no. 1: 68–84.
Bello, R. S., F. E. Brandau‐Brown, S. Zhang, and J. D. Ragsdale. 2010.
“Verbal and Nonverbal Methods for Expressing Appreciation in
Friendships and Romantic Relationships: A Cross‐Cultural Compari-
son.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34, no. 3: 294–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.02.007.
Berg, J. H., and M. S. Clark. 1986. “Differences in Social Exchange Be-
tween Intimate and Other Relationships: Gradually Evolving or Quickly
Apparent?” In Friendship and Social Interaction, edited by V. J. Derlega
and B. A. Winstead, 101–128. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4612-4880-4_6.
Burgoon, J. K., D. B. Buller, J. L. Hale, and M. A. DeTurck. 1984.
“Relational Messages Associated With Nonverbal Behaviors.” Human
Communication Research 10, no. 3: 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1468-2958.1984.tb00023.x.
Burgoon, J. K., and D. A. Newton. 1991. “Applying a Social Meaning
Model to Relational Message Interpretations of Conversational
Involvement: Comparing Observer and Participant Perspectives.”
Southern Communication Journal 56, no. 2: 96–113. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10417949109372822.
Burleson, M. H., N. A. Roberts, D. W. Coon, and J. A. Soto. 2019.
“Perceived Cultural Acceptability and Comfort With Affectionate
Touch: Differences Between Mexican Americans and European Amer-
icans.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36, no. 3: 1000–1022.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517750005.
Cazzell, A., J. Tsang, A. S. Rivers, J. L. Ratchford, and S. A. Schnitker.
2022. “Find, Remind, Blind? Support as a Context for the Adaptive
Nature of Gratitude.” Journal of Positive Psychology 4: 636–648. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2053875.
Chalk, K., and L. A. Bizo. 2004. “Specic Praise Improves On‐Task
Behaviour and Numeracy Enjoyment: A Study of Year Four Pupils
Engaged in the Numeracy Hour.” Educational Psychology in Practice 20,
no. 4: 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736042000314277.
Chang, Y.‐P., and S. B. Algoe. 2020. “On Thanksgiving: Cultural Vari-
ation in Gratitude Demonstrations and Perceptions Between the United
States and Taiwan.” Emotion 20, no. 7: 1185–1205. https://doi.org/10.
1037/emo0000662.
Chang, Y.‐P., P. C. Dwyer, and S. B. Algoe. 2022. “Better Together:
Integrative Analysis of Behavioral Gratitude in Close Relationships
Using the Three‐Factorial Interpersonal Emotions (TIE) Framework.”
Emotion 22, no. 8: 1739–1754. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001020.
Fehr, R., A. Fulmer, E. Awtrey, and J. A. Miller. 2017. “The Grateful
Workplace: A Multilevel Model of Gratitude in Organizations.” Acad-
emy of Management Review 42, no. 2: 361–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2014.0374.
Floyd, K. 2019. Affective Communication in Close Relationships. Cam-
bridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653510.
Floyd, K., and J. K. Burgoon. 1999. “Reacting to Nonverbal Expressions
of Liking: A Test of Interaction Adaptation Theory.” Communication
Monographs 66, no. 3: 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775
9909376475.
Frederickx, S., and J. Hofmans. 2014. “The Role of Personality in the
Initiation of Communication Situations.” Journal of Individual Differ-
ences 35, no. 1: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000124.
Fredrickson, B. L. 2004. “Gratitude, Like Other Positive Emotions,
Broadens and Builds.” In The Psychology of Gratitude, edited by R. A.
Emmons and M. E. McCullough. New York, NY: Oxford Scholarship
Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150100.001.0001.
8 of 10 Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Gable, S. L., and H. T. Reis. 2010. “Good News! Capitalizing on Positive
Events in an Interpersonal Context.” In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, edited by M. P. Zanna, Vol. 42, 195–257. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42004-3.
Gable, S. L., H. T. Reis, E. Impett, and E. R. Asher. 2004. “What Do You
Do When Things Go Right? The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Ben-
ets of Sharing Positive Events.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 87, no. 2: 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228.
Guerrero, L. K., L. Farinelli, and B. McEwan. 2009. “Attachment and
Relational Satisfaction: The Mediating Effect of Emotional Communi-
cation.” Communication Monographs 76, no. 4: 487–514. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03637750903300254.
Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Anchor.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Itzchakov, G., H. T. Reis, and N. Weinstein. 2021. “How to Foster
Perceived Partner Responsiveness: High‐Quality Listening Is Key.” So-
cial and Personality Psychology Compass 16, no. 1: e12648. https://doi.
org/10.1111/spc3.12648.
Jensen, M. 2016. “Personality Traits and Nonverbal Communication
Patterns.” International Journal of Social Science Studies 4, no. 5: 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4i5.1451.
Joel, S., A. M. Gordon, E. A. Impett, G. MacDonald, and D. Keltner.
2013. “The Things You Do for Me: Perceptions of a Romantic Partner's
Investments Promote Gratitude and Commitment.” Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 39, no. 10: 1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167213497801.
Jolink, T. A., Y.‐P. Chang, and S. B. Algoe. 2022. “Perceived Partner
Responsiveness Forecasts Behavioral Intimacy as Measured by Affec-
tionate Touch.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 48, no. 2: 203–
221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167221993349.
Kaplan, S., J. C. Bradley‐Geist, A. Ahmad, A. Anderson, A. K. Hargrove,
and A. Lindsey. 2014. “A Test of Two Positive Psychology Interventions
to Increase Employee Well‐Being.” Journal of Business and Psychology
29, no. 3: 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9319-4.
Kini, P., J. Wong, S. McInnis, N. Gabana, and J. W. Brown. 2016. “The
Effects of Gratitude Expression on Neural Activity.” NeuroImage 128: 1–
10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.040.
Ksenofontov, I., and J. C. Becker. 2020. “The Harmful Side of Thanks:
Thankful Responses to High‐Power Groups Help Undermine Low‐
Power Groups' Protest.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46,
no. 5: 794–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879125.
Kubacka, K. E., C. Finkenauer, C. E. Rusbult, and L. Keijsers. 2011.
“Maintaining Close Relationships: Gratitude as a Motivator and a De-
tector of Maintenance Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 37, no. 10: 1362–1375. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672
11412196.
Kumar, A., and N. Epley. 2018. “Undervaluing Gratitude: Expressers
Misunderstand the Consequences of Showing Appreciation.” Psycho-
logical Science 29, no. 9: 1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976
18772506.
Lambert, N. M., M. S. Clark, J. Durtschi, F. D. Fincham, and S. M.
Graham. 2010. “Benets of Expressing Gratitude: Expressing Gratitude
to a Partner Changes One's View of the Relationship.” Psychological
Science 21, no. 4: 574–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364003.
Lambert, N. M., and F. D. Fincham. 2011. “Expressing Gratitude to a
Partner Leads to More Relationship Maintenance Behavior.” Emotion
11, no. 1: 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021557.
Laurenceau, J. P., L. F. Barrett, and P. Pietromonaco. 1998. “Intimacy as
an Interpersonal Process: The Importance of Self‐Disclosure, Partner
Disclosure, and Perceived Partner Responsiveness in Interpersonal
Exchanges.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 5: 1238–
1251. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1238.
Leong, J. L., S. X. Chen, H. H. L. Fung, M. H. Bond, N. Y. F. Siu, and
J. Y. Zhu. 2020. “Is Gratitude Always Benecial to Interpersonal Re-
lationships? The Interplay of Grateful Disposition, Grateful Mood, and
Grateful Expression Among Married Couples.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 46, no. 1: 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616721
9842868.
Matsumoto, D. 2006. “Culture and Nonverbal Behavior.” In The Sage
Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, edited by V. Manusov and
M. L. Patterson, 219–235. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976152.n12.
McCullough, M. E., R. A. Emmons, and J. Tsang. 2002. “The Grateful
Disposition: A Conceptual and Empirical Topography.” Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 82, no. 1: 112–127. https://doi.org/10.
1037//0022-3514.82.1.112.
McNulty, J. K., and A. Dugas. 2019. “A Dyadic Perspective on Gratitude
Sheds Light of Both its Benets and its Costs: Evidence That Low
Gratitude Acts as a ‘Weak Link’.” Journal of Family Psychology 33, no. 7:
876–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000533.
Mikulincer, M., and O. Nachshon. 1991. “Attachment Styles and Pat-
terns of Self‐Disclosure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61,
no. 2: 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.321.
Mikulincer, M., and P. R. Shaver. 2003. “The Attachment Behavioral
System in Adulthood: Activation, Psychodynamics, and Interpersonal
Processes.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by
M. P. Zanna, Vol. 35, 53–152. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0065-2601(03)01002-5.
Mikulincer, M., P. R. Shaver, and K. Slav. 2006. “Attachment, Mental
Representations of Others, and Gratitude and Forgiveness in Romantic
Relationships.” In Dynamics of Romantic Love: Attachment, Caregiving,
and Sex, edited by M. Mikulincer and G. S. Goodman, 190–215. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Myers, D. M., B. Simonsen, and G. Sugai. 2011. “Increasing Teachers'
Use of Praise With a Response‐To‐Intervention Approach.” Education &
Treatment of Children 34, no. 1: 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.
0004.
Pagani, A. F., M. Parise, S. Donato, S. L. Gable, and D. Schoebi. 2020. “If
You Shared My Happiness, You Are Part of Me: Capitalization and the
Experience of Couple Identity.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 46, no. 2: 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219854449.
Park, Y., E. A. Impett, G. MacDonald, and E. P. Lemay. 2019. “Saying
‘Thank You’: Partners' Expressions of Gratitude Protect Relationship
Satisfaction and Commitment From the Harmful Effects of Attachment
Insecurity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal
Relations and Group Processes 117, no. 4: 773–806. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pspi0000178.
Park, Y., M. L. Visserman, N. M. Sisson, B. M. Le, J. E. Stellar, and E. A.
Impett. 2021. “How Can I Thank You? Highlighting the Benefactor's
Responsiveness or Costs When Expressing Gratitude.” Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships 38, no. 2: 504–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407520966049.
Parker, S. C., H. Majid, K. L. Stewart, and A. H. Ahrens. 2017. “No
Thanks! Autonomous Interpersonal Style Is Associated With Less
Experience and Valuing of Gratitude.” Cognition & Emotion 31, no. 8:
1627–1637. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1256274.
Potter, S. H. 1988. “The Cultural Construction of Emotion in Rural
Chinese Social Life.” Ethos 16, no. 2: 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1525/
eth.1988.16.2.02a00050.
Reis, H. T., M. S. Clark, and J. G. Holmes. 2004. “Perceived Partner
Responsiveness as an Organizing Construct in the Study of Intimacy
and Closeness.” In Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy, edited by D. J.
Mashek and A. P. Aron, 201–225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9 of 10
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Reis, H. T., and P. Shaver. 1988. “Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process.”
In Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and In-
terventions, edited by S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, and
B. M. Montgomery, 367–389. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Shaver, P. R., and C. Hazan. 1993. “Adult Romantic Attachment: Theory
and Evidence.” In Advances in Personal Relationships, edited by D.
Perlman and W. Jones, Vol. 4, 29–70. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Sims, C. M. 2016. “Do The Big‐Five Personality Traits Predict Empathic
Listening and Assertive Communication?” International Journal of
Listening 31, no. 3: 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.
1202770.
Sutherland, K. S., J. H. Wehby, and S. R. Copeland. 2000. “Effect of
Varying Rates of Behavior‐Specic Praise on the On‐Task Behavior of
Students With EBD.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 8,
no. 1: 2–8. 26. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800101.
Thompson, M. T., M. Marchant, D. Anderson, M. A. Prater, and G. Gibb.
2012. “Effects of Tiered Training on General Educators' Use of Specic
Praise.” Education & Treatment of Children 35, no. 4: 521–546. https://
doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0032.
Toepfer, S. M., K. Cichy, and P. Peters. 2012. “Letters of Gratitude:
Further Evidence for Author Benets.” Journal of Happiness Studies 13,
no. 1: 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9257-7.
Visserman, M. L., F. Righetti, E. A. Impett, D. Keltner, and P. A. M. Van
Lange. 2018. “It's the Motive That Counts: Perceived Sacrice Motives
and Gratitude in Romantic Relationships.” Emotion 18, no. 5: 625–637.
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000344.
Vollmann, M., S. Sprang, and F. van den Brink. 2019. “Adult Attach-
ment and Relationship Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Gratitude
Toward the Partner.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36, no.
11–12: 3875–3886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519841712.
Walsh, L. C., A. Regan, J. M. Twenge, and S. Lyubomirsky. 2022. “What
Is the Optimal Way to Give Thanks? Comparing the Effects of Gratitude
Expressed Privately, One‐To‐One via Text, or Publicly on Social Media.”
Affective Science 4, no. 1: 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-
00150-5.
Williams, L. A., and M. Y. Bartlett. 2015. “Warm Thanks: Gratitude
Expression Facilitates Social Afliation in New Relationships via
Perceived Warmth.” Emotion 15, no. 1: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/
emo0000017.
Wong, Y. J. 2023. “The Catalyst Model of Change: Gratitude In-
terventions With Positive Long‐Term Effects.” Affective Science 4, no. 1:
152–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00136-3.
Wong, Y. J., J. Owen, N. T. Gabana, et al. 2018. “Does Gratitude Writing
Improve the Mental Health of Psychotherapy Clients? Evidence From a
Randomized Controlled Trial.” Psychotherapy Research 28, no. 2: 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1169332.
Wood, A. M., J. J. Froh, and A. W. A. Geraghty. 2010. “Gratitude and
Well‐Being: A Review and Theoretical Integration.” Clinical Psychology
Review 30, no. 7: 890–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.005.
Zhang, L., S. Zhang, Y. Yang, and C. Li. 2017. “Attachment Orientations
and Dispositional Gratitude: The Mediating Roles of Perceived Social
Support and Self‐Esteem.” Personality and Individual Differences 114:
193–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.006.
Zhang, N., L.‐J. Ji, B. Bai, and Y. Li. 2018. “Culturally Divergent Con-
sequences of Receiving Thanks in Close Relationships.” Emotion 18, no.
1: 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000385.
Zhang, Q., and M. Wills. 2016. “A U.S.‐Chinese Comparison of Affec-
tionate Communication in Parent‐Child Relationships.” Communication
Research Reports 33, no. 4: 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.
2016.1224166.
10 of 10 Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024
17519004, 2024, 12, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.70024, Wiley Online Library on [08/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
