3.,
16¢.

. I. r I . .. ..
. . £31
arfiq‘F ‘ 4,.
an“... I
<3. 45 1hr. ““53
1: .. 3t :
. . I. .
fixdfiifiifflz‘. .
.. .6 43.... .1 w.

Man-3.5,.
.3

t!-
Sfivmflflfaafiansfl
.m «1&3 23.1?
wan?
:K!
.30.
.1

:9». .N

cl}... .

22.5-12!!!‘

33... “.95.?! xii...
£36.... vi...“
EX‘a it

«:5. .3
V n. 4 .l
t 3.?!
‘ :3!

KC, 1......
“Titliavik
3.5!!-

fl.

.Y-iz
3.93 . I
. 1515: ll)?

151..» is}!
4.3.2"... .13.!
?l{.‘lll|.f.i’
201:}.331

 

 

2059 LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SAVORING SUCCESS: EFFECTS OF BASKING AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OTHERS IN RESPONSE TO
ACHIEVEMENT

presented by

JESSICA KEENEY

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

    

 

 

Master of Arts degree in A Psycholofl
/ M‘éjoFProfeo V ignature
5// z /2 60 7
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'IProllAcc8PreleIRCIDateDue indd

 

SAVORING SUCCESS: .
EFFECTS OF BASKING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OTHERS
IN RESPONSE TO ACHIEVEMENT
By

Jessica Keeney

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fitlfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Psychology

2009

ABSTRACT

SAVORING SUCCESS: EFFECTS OF BASKING AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OTHERS IN RESPONSE TO ACHIEVEMENT

By
Jessica Keeney
Only recently have social scientists begun to seek a full understanding of how
individuals react to positive events. Savoring consists of the thoughts or behaviors
experienced or enacted when mindfully attending to and appreciating an outcome or
event that is perceived as positive. Much as a diner savors a good meal or a traveler a
beautiful sunset, people can savor a variety of positive experiences, including those that
take place at school or work. The present study examined whether savoring a personal
success was related to intrapersonal benefits. Two forms of savoring success were
examined—basking and acknowledgment of others. Students who were accepted to a
four—year university participated in an intervention in which savoring was manipulated.
Participants were randomly assigned to bask in the success of their admission, to
acknowledge others’ contributions to their success, or to perform a control task. Students
who savored their admission experienced higher positive affect and gratitude and, under
certain circumstances, pride. Counter to expectations, the effects of savoring did not
extend to more stable components of subjective well-being (life satisfaction), to
motivational constructs (self-efficacy, performance goals), or to perceived relations to
others. Also unexpectedly, narcissism did not appear to be as detrimental to savoring as
initially hypothesized. Although more evidence is needed, the results seem to suggest that

self-esteem plays a facilitative role in savoring success.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, thank you to my two co—advisors, Remus Ilies and Dan Ilgen,
for their helpful feedback and patient guidance. Thank you to Ann Marie Ryan for
serving on my committee and providing challenging and insightful comments.
Much appreciation is due to my classmates, friends, and family who have always
shown faith in me. Last but not least, thank you to Michael Keeney who keeps me

grounded and helps me to think in new ways.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Why Savoring is an Important Concept ....................................................................... 4
Positive Events and the Assessment of Well-Being ................................................ 4
Slowing Hedonic Adaptation ................................................................................... 6

The Adaptiveness of Attending to Positive Events .................................................. 7
Origins and Definition of Savoring .............................................................................. 8
Forms of Savoring ........................................................................................................ 9
Basking .............................................................................................................. 10
Acknowledgement of others .............................................................................. 11
Similarities between Basking and Acknowledgement of Others ............................... 11
Hypothesis Development ............................................................................................... 13
Subjective Well-Being ............................................................................................... 13
Savoring and Locus of Causality ............................................................................... l9
Savoring, Self-efficacy and Goal-setting ................................................................... 21
Positive Relations with Others ................................................................................... 24
Individual Differences ............................................................................................... 25
Self-esteem ............................................................................................................. 26
Contingency of self-esteem ................................................................................ 27

Level of self-esteem ........................................................................................... 28
Narcissism .............................................................................................................. 30

Trait gratitude ......................................................................................................... 32
Summary of the Present Study ....................................................................................... 35
METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 40
Overview .................................................................................................................... 40
Sample ........................................................................................................................ 41
Design and Procedure ................................................................................................ 41
Measures .................................................................................................................... 42
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 42
Experimental Manipulation ................................................................................... 45
Controls .................................................................................................................. 49
Individual Differences ........................................................................................... 50
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 51
Manipulation checks .................................................................................................. 51
Discriminant Validity of Outcome Measures ............................................................ 53
Controlling for Extraneous Variables ........................................................................ 55
Test of Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 61
Subjective well—being ................................................................................................. 61
Causal Attributions .................................................................................................... 63

iv

Emotions .................................................................................................................... 63

Motivational Constructs ............................................................................................. 67
Positive Relations with Others ................................................................................... 69
Individual Difference Moderators .............................................................................. 69
Supplementary Analysis: The Role of Time .............................................................. 73
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 74
Can Forms of Savoring be Distinguished? ................................................................ 76
Shortfalls of Attribution Theory in Predicting Positive Emotions ............................. 77
Basking and Pride ...................................................................................................... 79
How Does Savoring Work? ....................................................................................... 80
Does Savoring Affect Lasting Outcomes? ................................................................. 81

Do Individual Differences Affect the Savoring Process? .......................................... 83
Dispositional Predictors of Authentic and Hubristic Pride .................................... 83
Dispositional Predictors of Gratitude ..................................................................... 86
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 87
Practical Implications and Future Research ............................................................... 90
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 91
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................... 95
APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX F ..................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX G .................................................................................................................. 101
APPENDIX H .................................................................................................................. 103
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX J ................................................................................................................... 105
APPENDIX K .................................................................................................................. 106
APPENDIX L .................................................................................................................. 107
APPENDIX M ................................................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX N .................................................................................................................. 1 10

V

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 11 1

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Hypotheses tested in present study ..................................................................... 36
Table 2. Manipulation check conducted by independent raters. ....................................... 53
Table 3. Correlation of latent well-being factors .............................................................. 54
Table 4. Perceived task characteristics and their correlations with outcomes. ................. 56

Table 5. Success-related perceptions/behaviors and their correlations with outcomes 58

Table 6. Intercorrelations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities ....................... 59

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Personality influences on savoring .................................................................... 26
Figure 2. The resistance and conductance hypotheses for trait gratitude. ........................ 34
Figure 3. Hypothesized direct and mediated relations between variables ........................ 38
Figure 4. Hypothesized direct and moderated relations between variables ...................... 39
Figure 5. Positive affect and life satisfaction means by condition. .................................. 62
Figure 6. Gratitude means by condition. ........................................................................... 64
Figure 7. Authentic and hubristic pride means by condition. ........................................... 66
Figure 8. Self-efficacy and performance goal means by condition. ................................. 68
Figure 9. Perceived relations with others means by condition. ........................................ 69
Figure 10. Authentic pride as a function of condition and level of self-esteem. .............. 71
Figure l 1. Hubristic pride as a function of condition and level of narcissism. ................ 72
Figure 12. Positive affect as a function of condition and level of self-esteem. ................ 84

viii

INTRODUCTION

Individuals differ from one another in the extent to which they are happy and
satisfied with their lives. Factors that we might expect to account for such differences,
such as age, personality, and life events, actually explain only a small amount of the
variance across people in well-being (e.g., Headey & Wearing, 1989). Most surprisingly,
the occurrence of good events does not necessarily translate into improved well-being.
For example, lottery winners are not necessarily happier than the rest of the population
(Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978) and people sometimes purposely dampen a
good mood (Wood, Heimpel, & Michela, 2003). Thus, people are not passive recipients
of the desirable effects of positive events. Instead, the extent to which individuals derive
pleasure from positive events may depend on their actions in response to those events.

There is a great deal of information about affective and cognitive reactions to
negative life events in the psychological literature, whereas reactions to positive events
have received comparatively less attention. A focus on alleviating the effects of stressors
has been justifiable given their relationship to important outcomes including depression
and physical illness (Karasek, 1979). However, positive events, to the extent that they
result in positive emotions, can also play a role in “undoing” the consequences of
negative emotions (Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000). Most
importantly, research findings demonstrate that overall well-being is determined not only
by the absence of the negative, but also by the presence of the positive (Zautra and
Simons, 1979). Positive affect is one indicator of well-being and it is predicted by

positive events, but not negative events (Zautra, Affleck, Tennen, Reich, & Davis, 2005).

The manner by which individuals alleviate stressors has been studied under the
framework of coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). We know that individuals choose
different coping strategies partly dependent on their stylistic ways of thinking, and that
the effectiveness of such strategies is gauged by the reduction of outcomes like stress or
depression. Hence, our knowledge of peoples’ reactions to negative events has advanced
over the past several decades. Whereas coping can shorten or lessen the severity of the
negative effects of stressors, recent research suggests that there is a parallel process
whereby the desirable influences of positive experiences can be prolonged or intensified.
This basic process has been labeled savoring by Bryant and colleagues (Bryant, 1989;
Bryant, 2003; Bryant, Smart, & King, 2005; Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Much as a diner
savors a good meal or a traveler a beautiful sunset, people can savor a variety of positive
experiences, including those that take place at school or work. Take for instance, an
employee who receives compliments from his or her supervisor. This employee may let
the experience go or instead think about how he or she deserved the comments and let the
positive feelings carry on through the rest of the day.

Savoring consists of the thoughts or behaviors experienced or enacted when
mindfully attending to and appreciating an outcome or event that is perceived as positive
(Bryant & Veroff, 2007, p. 13). There are several methods by which a person can savor a
positive event. For example, individuals may share the event with others, reflect on how
indebted they are to others for its occurrence, or engage in cognitive basking during
which they praise themselves for the outcome. The latter two methods are forms of

intrapersonal savoring, and are of focal interest to the present study.

The present study will establish two forms of intrapersonal savoring as valid
constructs representative of the more general construct of savoring, and manipulate them
in a field intervention. Theoretical work explains how savoring results in unique
increments in positive affect (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). The first aim of the research is to
provide firmer evidence for the effects of intrapersonal savoring on positive affect, above
and beyond the effects produced solely by the occurrence of the positive event.

The basic mechanism of savoring is presumed to operate similarly across different
settings or domains of life (e.g., school, home, work). In general, savoring should result
in greater positive affect and satisfaction. Depending on the type of event and the
dominant concerns in the setting in which it occurs, however, other outcomes may be
relevant and deserve to be examined. The second aim of the present study is to examine
savoring within a clearly defined context. An achievement setting was chosen because it
is a domain in which savoring could have practical implications.

The third aim of the present study is to expand the outcomes that are investigated
in the context of savoring. Nezlek (2005) noted that research on positive events has been
dominated by the examination of affective reactions (i.e., SWB) and argued that there is a
need for increased research on non-affective reactions. Prior research on savoring has
been narrowly focused on positive affect (e. g., Wood, Heimpel, & Michela, 2003), but
the nature of the construct suggests that its effects are much broader. When savoring is
viewed as pure mood regulation, it makes sense to look at affect as an outcome, but here
it is proposed that savoring is a broader regulatory response to a positive event. Positive
events have implications not only for how individuals feel, but also for how they think

about themselves (Nezlek & Plesko, 2001; Nezlo & Plesko, 2003). The thoughts and

behaviors of which savoring is composed are therefore consequential in regards other
than emotions and mood. In particular, when the event being savored is an
accomplishment, a host of self- or other-relevant thoughts are likely to arise. A personal
success is likely to engender positive self-focused thoughts or thoughts about others
involved (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). It is for this reason that the present study examines the
impact of intrapersonal savoring on a person’s self-beliefs and perceived relations with
others.

In sum, the purpose for conducting this research is to investigate the active
intrapersonal processes by which individuals savor their achievements. The three aims for
the present research are to (1) replicate the effects of savoring on positive affect and
satisfaction, (2) apply the concept of savoring to an achievement setting, and (3)
demonstrate the effects of savoring with respect to a broadened set of outcomes.

Before the methods of the present study are described, a review of the pertinent
literature is presented. The review begins with theory and research concerning positive
events, as well as the benefits to be gained by studying savoring. Then, the construct of
savoring including its definition, origins, and forms is discussed. Previous research
evidence that supports theoretical predictions about savoring is reviewed. The hypotheses
for the present research are proposed, followed by a discussion of individual differences
that may affect one’s capacity to savor.

Why Savoring is an Important Concept
Positive Events and the Assessment of Well-Being
Early studies investigating the effects of positive events were motivated by a

desire to complement the study of negative events and were very basic in their research

aims. For instance, it was not known whether positive events had an effect on well-being.
The then current concept of well-being proved to be rough and insufficient. Zautra and
Simons (1979) found that whereas positive events were not related to psychological
distress, they were related to measures of positive affect and perceived quality of life.
Hence, a complete picture of well-being involves both positive and negative aspects. This
notion has since been well-corroborated. Positive and negative affect have been
established as independent constructs that occupy different continua (Watson & Tellegen,
1985). Furthermore, these two aspects of affective well-being are differentially predicted;
positive events predict positive but not negative affect, whereas negative events predict
negative but not positive affect (e.g., Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000).

Subjective well-being (SWB) is now conceptualized as having both positive and
negative affective components and a cognitive component (i.e., life satisfaction).
Researchers may focus on one or all of these components as indicators of subjective well-
being (Lucas, Diener & Sub, 1996). A number of research studies have supported the
relationship between positive events and SWB (e.g., David, Green, Martin, & Suls, 1997;
Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000; Nezlek and Plesko, 2003, Sub, Diener, & Fujita, 1996).

Two seemingly discouraging assessments have been offered with respect to
positive events and SWB. First (like with negative events), the effects of positive events
do not persist. Individuals eventually return to their previous levels of contentment.
Second, findings have shown that people do not pay as much attention to positive events
as they do to negative events (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). This has led many researchers

to assume that there is no adaptive function in attending to positive events. The following

section suggests how a theory of savoring can address these two limitations in thinking
regarding the role of positive events in SWB.
Slowing Hedonic Adaptation

A research study on lottery winners sparked the debate on whether people can
achieve sustainable increases in happiness (Brickman et al., 1978). In short, lottery
winners were not significantly happier than nonwinners. In effect, individuals are
assumed to have a set level of affect that is somewhat genetically determined (Lykken &
Tellegen, 1996) or at least quite stable to which they return after happy or sad events.
Although there has been wide support for what has been termed the hedonic treadmill
(for a review, see Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999), there are nonetheless contradictions.
For example, research has shown that levels of happiness do change over long periods of
time and that rates of change vary across individuals (F ujita & Diener, 2005). The
question is why? Diener, Lucas, and Scollon (2006, p. 313) state that “adaptation is a
powerful force, but it is not so complete and automatic that it will defeat all efforts to
change well-being. The exciting research challenge is to discover the factors that control
the adaptation process.”

One possibility is that instead of a set point of happiness, individuals may have a
set range of happiness within which there is freedom to move (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, &
Schkade, 2005). Several authors have suggested that individuals are capable of
countering the effects of hedonic adaptation to positive events. Savoring is a likely
candidate in the quest for factors that control the adaptation process. The concept of
savoring was proposed as a means by which individuals control their responses to

positive events (Bryant, 1989). One avenue through which savoring operates is keeping

the positive event in memory longer (Langston, 1994; Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher,
2004). Savoring may also work to slow adaptation by extracting the full meaning of a
positive event thus creating more long-lasting changes within a person.
The Adaptiveness of A ttending to Positive Events

A negativity bias refers to the fact that people tend to weigh negative events and
information more heavily than their positive counterparts. Positive experiences are
thought to occupy low priority on our day-to-day radar. In fact, the majority of our time is
spent in a mildly positive mood (Watson, 2000). A positive event indicates a benign state
(Schwarz, 2001) in which no immediate and clear course of action is required. It is for
this reason that Taylor (1991 , p. 80) suggested that “positive events and information may
take care of themselves.” Not being required to attend to positive events may serve an
adaptive function in that energy is reserved to deal with negative, high-arousal situations.

The problem with this viewpoint, however, is similar to that presented by a
negative feedback loop. If one is only concerned with reducing discrepancies, then when
does one create improvements? A science of savoring challenges the idea that positive
events are undeserving of attention and highlights the function served by attending to
them. Martin and Tesser (1988) noted that although recurrent positive thoughts (such as
those that constitute savoring) “do not directly address a discrepancy, they aid in
reaffirming the lack of one” (p. 10). Whereas individuals are often focused on pursuing
short-term mood management, savoring reaffirms the existence of a positive state
allowing individuals to pursue other goals, such as self-evaluation and self-improvement
(Aspinwall, 1998). In effect, one needs to ‘build’ the resources necessary for goal pursuit

(Fredrickson, 1998) and even stockpile them for future use in negative situations

(Aspinwall, 1998). Savoring should free attention from energy-draining negative
occurrences, replenish psychological resources, and build self-regard.
Origins and Definition of Savoring

Bryant (1989) first advanced the concept of savoring in a study of perceived
control over one’s environment. In a two-process control model, primary control is
associated with manipulating the actual occurrence or nonoccurrence of events, whereas
secondary control is associated with regulating responses to those events (Rothbaum,
Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). Bryant (1989) found support for a four-factor model wherein
people are thought to have beliefs about their control of (a) obtaining positive events, (b)
avoiding negative events, (c) amplifying or prolonging enjoyment of positive events, and
(d) coping with negative events. People presumably have strategies to deal with each
component of this model. Savoring is associated with the third factor—the manner by
which people control the benefits to be derived from positive events.

A similar framework from which to view savoring is the two-stage theory of
emotional response processes (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Initially proposed to explain
individuals’ reactions to negative events, it extends quite readily to reactions to positive
events. According to the model, a person first appraises a situation, which results in an
emotion. Second, the person determines how to respond. In the case of coping, an
individual can choose to manage his or her response to the negative event through a
variety of mechanisms (e.g., dealing with the problem or engaging in mood repair). In
parallel, a person has a choice of how to respond to a pleasant experience. Instead of
coping, individuals capitalize on positive occurrences (Langston, 1994) via the cognitive

and behavioral strategies we call savoring.

Savoring is a broad term used to denote any process whereby individuals “actively
derive pleasure and fulfillment in relation to positive experience” (Bryant & Veroff,
2007, p. xiii). As can be gleaned from the above definition of savoring, individuals may
engage in a variety of thoughts and behaviors to savor. Various research studies in
positive psychology provide some insight into potential cognitive strategies of deriving
pleasure from positive aspects of life. For example, Emmons and McCullough (2003)
conducted an intervention to stimulate thoughts of gratitude. Adler and Fagley (2005)
collected self-reports of appreciative thinking (Adler & Fagley, 2005). Lyubomirsky and
Tucker (1998) studied endorsement of various thinking styles in response to pleasant
occurrences (e. g., “I imagined [the event] vividly, thought about how it happened,” p.
162).

F arms of Savoring

Bryant and Veroff (2007) undertook an exploratory study of the strategies people
use to savor positive events. These authors asked college students, in reference to a recent
pleasant occurrence, “Are you aware of anything you thought or did when you were
experiencing this positive event that might have influenced your enjoyment?” (p. 88).
From initial flee-responses and existing theory on emotional regulation, a close-ended
instrument was developed, called the Ways of Savoring Checklist (WOSC), from which
the following ways of savoring were identified: sharing with others, memory-building,
self-congratulation, sensory-perceptual sharpening, comparing, absorption, behavioral
expression, temporal awareness, and counting blessings.

In addition to identifying the concrete savoring behaviors in which individuals

engage, Bryant and Veroff (2007) advanced a broad integrative framework for

categorizing savoring processes based on two dimensions. First, forms of savoring can
differ based on time orientation. A person can savor while they are absorbed in the
experience or they can engage in cognitive reflection outside the timefrarne of the event.
Savoring during an experience seems most applicable to leisurely pursuits (e.g.,
marveling at mountainous landscapes or luxuriating in a bubble bath), whereas cognitive
reflection is applicable to a wide range of experiences. Consistent with this notion,
students reported greater use of the present-focused ways of savoring (e.g., sensory-
perceptual sharpening) for vacations and greater use of cognitive reflective ways of
savoring (e.g., self-congratulation) for earning a good grade. In an achievement context,
in which the significance of the event is not often realized until it has already occurred,
cognitive reflection is most relevant.

Second, the nature of savoring can differ based on its direction of focus. Savoring
can be focused inward (i.e., on the self) or can be focused on more outward concerns (i.e.,
people or the world more generally). When the focus is the self savoring resembles
basking and when the focus is outward savoring resembles what Bryant and Veroff
labeled thanksgiving, and what will hereafter be referred to as acknowledgement of
others. Basking and acknowledgement of others are the forms of savoring that will be
investigated in the present study.

Basking is a form of self-focused savoring that involves an “appreciation of the
way we are or what we have done” (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Similar to the way that
football fans bask in the glory of their team’s successes (e. g., Cialdini et al., 1976)
individuals can bask in the glory of their own successes. Bryant and Veroff found that

self-congratulation was correlated with the sense of responsibility a person had for the

10

event. This suggests that basking is associated with an internal locus of causality for a
positive event.

Acknowledgement of others is a more outward-focused form of savoring. It
involves the recognition that there is a reason why good things happen. Although
acknowledgement of others does not preclude the focal person from assuming primary
responsibility for a positive event (Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003), there is
an acknowledgment that factors outside oneself were in one’s favor. Acknowledgment of
others is similar to what some researchers have labeled gratitude, but different
terminology is used here to emphasize that it is defined primarily by its constituent
attributional beliefs and not by its resulting emotion. The distinction between knowledge
of what has been done for us and grateful emotion at first blush is blurry in the English
language but the distinction is more apparent in other languages. For example, in the
Indian language of Pali the word “katannuta” means knowing or reminiscing about what
has been done for us and has a more intellectual, less emotional connotation. Gratitude
researchers have suggested that a person who is grateful identifies a benefactor (Emmons
& Crumpler, 2000). The benefactor who is credited is likely to vary from situation to
situation and from person to person. Because of the emotional and instrumental support
that parents, friends, and other members of one’s close social network provide (House,
Umberson, & Landis, 1988), they are likely to be perceived as causal agents in positive
life outcomes. Alternatively, spiritual individuals may choose to credit a higher being for
positive occurrences (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002).

Similarities between Basking and Acknowledgement of Others

11

It is clear from the above discussion that basking and acknowledgement of others
are distinct in terms of the relative dominance of internal versus external attribution.
Basking is largely composed of self-credit, whereas acknowledgement of others entails
giving credit to external sources. Despite their apparent differences, they are both forms
of savoring and, as such, it is instructive to highlight their similarities. One feature that
Bryant and Veroff (2007) argue cuts across all forms of savoring is a meta-awareness of
one’s pleasure. Savoring involves a second-order awareness of one’s cognitive-emotional
response to a positive event. F rijda and Sundararajan (2007) explain that one dwells not
only on the primary experience (e.g., acing an exam), but also on the experience it
generates (e.g., one’s sense of accomplishment and positive affect). One implication of
this common basis for savoring is that when operationalizing different forms of savoring,
one should include these general components of pleasure awareness (e. g., “I am enjoying
this” and “This is a success”).

In addition to containing overlapping components, different forms of savoring are
likely to co-occur. That is, individuals are likely to savor in more than one way in
response to the same event. Therefore, it is no surprise that self-reports of the use of
different savoring strategies for the same event display moderate intercorrelations. Self-
congratulation and counting blessings in response to a good grade in school were found
to correlate .59 (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). The authors of this study speculated that the
relationship is at least partly due to engaging in different forms of savoring at different
points in time for the same event. Also, they concede that any particular experience of

savoring may be an impure form of savoring in that it contains both self- and world-

12

focused elements. One desirable characteristic of the present study is that the relative
degree of self- and other-focus can be manipulated.
Hypothesis Development

The following section reviews theoretical and empirical work in support of the
study’s hypotheses. The first set of hypotheses concerns the effects of savoring on
subjective well-being. Second, predictions are made about the locus of causality that
should be dominant depending on the type of savoring (i.e., basking or acknowledgement
of others). Then, differential predictions are made for the effect of basking and
acknowledgement of others on outcomes including emotions, self-efficacy, and positive
relations with others. The last set of hypotheses concerns the role of individual
differences in moderating the efficacy of basking and acknowledgement of others
interventions.

Subjective Well-Being

As previously explained, SWB is indicated by high positive affect (PA), low
negative affect (NA), and high life satisfaction. Positive affect is an emotional state that is
associated with feeling in control (Mandler, 1975); it signals the presence of a safe base
from which to explore one’s environment. F redrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions suggests that unlike negative affect, which serves to narrow attentional
focus to deal with a problem at hand, positive affect broadens a person’s possible array of
thoughts and actions. In this mood state, a person is less likely to cling to old thought and
behavior patterns and more likely to pursue new and creative routes (Fredrickson, 1998).
Positive affect has been associated with an increase in a wide range of outcomes in

achievement settings: performance (e. g., George, 1991; Staw & Barsade, 1993),

13

creativity (e.g., lsen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987), organizational spontaneity (e.g.,
George & Brief, 1992), and group functioning (George, 1990).

Life satisfaction is the judgment that is formed by comparing one’s own life
circumstances with self-standards (Pavot & Diener, 1993). The psychological state of
satisfaction (e.g., job, life, or academic satisfaction) is moderately related to performance
in work and at school (Bean & Bradley, 1986; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001).
There is some debate about direction of causality (e.g., Organ, 1977), and the present
study (i.e., savoring one’s successes) would suggest that there is some reciprocality
between satisfaction and performance. Satisfaction is also closely related to other
affective evaluations and behavioral intentions, such as institutional commitment and
intentions to quit school or work (Tett & Meyer, 1993; Tinto, 1975). Apart from these
benefits to organizations, satisfaction with life is often considered a valuable individual-
level outcome in its own right.

Bryant and Veroff’s (2007) theory specifically predicts that savoring increases PA
and they provided indirect evidence of this effect. People’s self-reported use of the ways
of savoring an event was related to their self-reported duration of enjoyment of the event
(Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Also, people who perceive themselves as capable of savoring,
in general, report higher levels of happiness (Bryant, 2003).

Prior research on interpersonal savoring provides direct support for the effects of
savoring on both PA and life satisfaction. Positive events often prompt individuals to
seek out others with whom to share good news (Rime, Mesquita, Philippot, & Boca,
1991). Celebrating or seeking social contact afier something good happens is related to

higher subjective well-being (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004; Langston, 1994).

14

Langston (1994) asked college students to record daily instances of celebrating their
positive experiences and sharing them with others, as well as record their PA levels five
times throughout the course of each day. Langston found that sharing positive events
made unique contributions to subsequent PA, although the effects for life satisfaction
were not significant. Gable et al. (2004) found that, on average, students shared their
most positive daily experience with others at least three days out of the five-day study.
Interpersonal savoring was found to relate positively to PA and life satisfaction
controlling for the importance of the event.

There is also empirical support for a host of intrapersonal responses to positive
occurrences. Research supports the general notion that thinking about positive events
from one’s past increases subjective well-being. For example, reminiscence has been
found to be a strong factor in elder adults’ well-being (Bohlmeijer, Smit, & Cuijpers,
2003). Reminiscence can help people form narratives, generate a sense of purpose in life,
and enhance a sense of mastery (Bohlmeijer, Valenkamp, Westerhof, Smit, & Cuijpers,
2005). In a study of positive reminiscence, participants were instructed to either think
about a pleasant memory using cognitive imagery or while looking at memorabilia
(Bryant, Smart, & King, 2005). Participants in both conditions reported greater happiness
than a control group who instead thought about current concerns. Writing about one’s
happiest experiences in life (e.g., falling in love, success experiences) has also been
found to increase levels of PA relative to control groups (Burton & King, 2004; Kloss &
Lisman, 2002; Marlo & Wagner, 1999). Lyubomirsky, Sousa, and Dickerhoof (2006)
obtained mixed findings regarding the effects of writing or thinking about one’s happiest

life experience. In one study, Lyubormirsky et al. failed to find significant effects against

15

a control condition and, in a follow-up study, there was no control condition to be able to
make firm conclusions. ‘

Whereas the above studies speak primarily to intensely positive experiences, one
study provides evidence that people can successfully savor smaller scale events.
Seligman and colleagues obtained impressive results in a one-week intervention in which
participants wrote daily about three things that went well and why they thought they went
as well as they did (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Although the increase in
happiness immediately following the exercise was no greater than that of the control
group, there was a significant difference one month later, an effect that was sustained for
six months.

To better understand how savoring works, it is useful to concentrate on specific
types of savoring. This allows us to delve into the underlying thought processes that are
linked to outcomes. One specific form of savoring that has been empirically investigated
is acknowledgement of others, which has been primarily studied under the rubric of
gratitudel . Grateful thought typically focuses on a benefit received and on other people
(Bono & McCullough, 2006). A grateful disposition has been reliably associated with
higher positive affectivity and life satisfaction (Adler & Fagley, 2005; McCullough,
Emmons, & Tsang, 2002; Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003). Several studies
have examined the impact of gratitude interventions on subjective well-being. In one
study students who listed summer activities for which they were grateful exhibited
significant increases in PA (Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003). Emmons &

McCullough (2003) conducted three studies, taking place over 10- to 13-week periods, in

 

I The manner in which gratitude has been conceptualized by researchers is broader than an emotion and
consistent with what we call acknowledgement of others and, hence, the gratitude literature will be
consulted to inform the present discussion.

16

which participants kept records of things in their life for which they were grateful. They
found that the writing exercise resulted in increases in PA, life satisfaction, and
expectations for the future (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). The same results for
happiness were found in a similar six-week intervention, in which participants were
instructed to contemplate the things for which they were grateful either once or three
times per week (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). Surprisingly, in this study
only the participants who reflected once per week, and not those individuals who
reflected three times per week, exhibited significant increases in happiness compared to
the control group.

Why does savoring a positive event increase SWB? The exact route through
which savoring enhances SWB may depend on the form of savoring. For instance,
interpersonal savoring probably involves some aspects of social verification (Hardin &
Higgins, 1996) or social interaction that increase happiness. Alternatively, there may be a
purely cognitive process that underlies most forms of savoring. Gable et al. (2004)
reasoned that sharing an event instigates cognitive rehearsal and elaboration that, in turn,
increases the event’s salience and accessibility in memory. To the extent that a positive
event is available in memory, it should affect one’s mood and life satisfaction judgments.
In support of their theory, these authors found that out of all the events experienced over
a lO-day period, the ones that were shared with others were more successfully recalled in
a surprise memory task. In a similar vein, people may actively recall an event in their
minds (i.e., without interacting with other people) making it more influential in their
present mood and judgments. Hence, the construct of positive cognitive rumination may

offer a viable explanation for the effects of savoring. Typically, rumination has been

17

studied in the context of negative events finding that it is linked to longer and more
severe depression (Just & Alloy, 1997). However, positive rumination has recently been
introduced as a separate construct that also has implications for psychological health
(Feldman, Joorrnann, & Johnson, 2008). Positive rumination is conceived as an emotion
regulation strategy that people use to maintain PA. Its two components are self-focused
and emotion-focused thoughts. Although positive rumination is very similar to savoring,
one primary distinction of savoring is that it is with respect to a specific event or
experience.

As can be seen from the above review, there is clear support for the effects of
savoring on the subjective well-being outcomes of positive affect and life satisfaction.
However, Bryant and Veroff’s (2007) study did not directly measure such variables, and
other empirical work has not clearly delineated the form of savoring being investigated.
Furthermore, the effects of interventions to induce acknowledgment of others have been
demonstrated, but not specifically with respect to a discrete event. One central question is
whether individuals who savor a positive event will experience greater positive affect—
the hallmark of savoring—than people who also experience a positive event but do not
savor. In the present study savoring is manipulated via a writing task. It is hypothesized
that positive affect, as well as life satisfaction, will be greater for individuals who write
about a personal success than for those individuals in a control group. This effect is
expected to occur regardless of the savoring strategy (i.e., whether individuals bask in
their success or acknowledge the contributions of others).

H1: Positive affect will be higher for individuals who write about a personal

success compared to individuals in a control group.

18

H2: Life satisfaction will be higher for individuals who write about a personal
success compared to individuals in a control group.
Savoring and Locus of Causality

In the majority of the research reviewed above, there was no direct knowledge of
the extent to which people considered their own versus others’ causal roles when thinking
about a positive event. According to attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), different types of
causal attributions vary along the dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability
(Russell & McAuley, 1986). For example, ability is perceived as an internal, stable, and
uncontrollable cause. Effort is also internal, but is considered an unstable and controllable
cause. The actions of others are external and can vary in controllability and stability.

Because basking in success involves reflecting on one’s own ability or effort, it
should be associated with an internal locus of causality. In contrast, acknowledgment of
others by definition involves recognizing the benevolence and good intentions of others
and should be related to external attributions of causality (Emmons & Crumpler, 2000). It
is important to note that in the present study, these forms of savoring are induced and
attributions should be simultaneously manipulated. However, in their natural occurrence,
it is also possible and likely that forms of savoring follow from attributions (i.e., a
different causal order).

H3: Basking in a personal success will be positively related to internal attributions

of causality, relative to acknowledgement of others in response to the success.

H4: Acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success will be

positively related to external attributions of causality, relative to basking in the

SUCCESS.

19

Savoring and Emotions

Assessing emotions is important because they can be significant predictors of
behavior. Experiencing pride in response to an accomplishment may improve
performance on later tasks (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). Fredrickson (2000) proposed that
gratitude, because of its relation to feelings of indebtedness, motivates behavior meant to
benefit others including organizational citizenship behavior.

Achievement emotions can be categorized as outcome-dependent or attribution-
dependent (Weiner, 1985). Outcome-dependent emotions like happiness and joy result
based simply on the fact that one has attained a goal, whereas attribution-dependent
emotions vary according to the perceived cause of goal attainment. Self-relevant
emotions (e. g., shame, guilt, pride) occur to the extent that the event is seen as internally
caused. In contrast, if an external source of the event is recognized, other-focused beliefs
and emotions (e.g., anger, gratitude) will be evoked (Weiner, 2000). Accordingly,
Weiner, Russell, and Lennan (1978) found that success perceived as due to ability results
in feelings of competence, confidence and pride, and success due to the actions of others
results in feelings of gratitude and thankfulness. Therefore, it is predicted that
acknowledging others in response to a success, because it induces external attributions of
causality, should be associated with the other-focused emotion of gratitude.

H5: Acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success will be

associated with higher gratitude than will basking in success.

H5a: The relationship between acknowledgement of others and gratitude will be

mediated by external attributions for success.

20

In contrast, to the extent that basking in a success induces internal attributions of
causality, this form of savoring should be associated with more self-conscious positive
emotions, such as pride. According to Tracy and Robins (2007), there are two aspects of
pride, authentic and hubristic, the former which is associated with effort attributions and
the latter which is associated with ability attributions for an achievement. Authentic pride
is thought to reflect accomplishments whereas hubristic pride is a form of boasting about
one’s abilities (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). Basking is likely to involve some of both types
of attributions and, hence, be related to both types of pride. According to the findings of
Tracy & Robins (2007a), however, basking should relate to each facet of pride through
distinct paths.

H6: Basking in a personal success will be associated with higher authentic and

hubristic pride than will acknowledgement of others in response to a success.

H6a: The relationship between basking and authentic pride will be mediated by

effort attributions.

H6b: The relationship between basking and hubristic pride will be mediated by

ability attributions.

Savoring, Self-eflicacy and Goal-setting

The above discussion centered on the hedonic benefits of experiences. Bryant and
Veroff’s (2007) conceptualization of savoring is largely concerned with pleasure and a
natural inclination is to measure people’s positive affect. Although as a first step, the
effect of savoring should be examined with respect to positive affect and other
components of SWB, by no means should an investigation of savoring outcomes be

limited to affective constructs. The present research will also consider the implications of

21

savoring success for motivation. It has been suggested that reminiscence and basking
play a central role in the maintenance of self-esteem and confidence (Martin & Tesser,
1996). Particularly when a positive event is a success for which one feels personally
responsible, savoring is likely to be closely intertwined with self-beliefls in addition to
self-conscious emotions. Accordingly, self-esteem has been found to increase in response
to a success when it is attributed to ability, but not when it is attributed to characteristics
of the task (McFarland & Ross, 1982). One self-belief that is particularly relevant to the
experience of success and that has clear implications for performance in an achievement
setting is self-efficacy.

Perceived self-efficacy has been defined as “judgments of how well one can
execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p.
122). Self-efficacy creates incentives to exert goal-directed effort and leads to greater
persistence in the face of obstacles (Bandura, 1997). Meta-analysis indicates a
moderately significant relationship between self-efficacy and performance in both
academic settings (Brown, et al., in press; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Robbins,
Lauver, Le, Davis, & Langely, 2004) and employment settings (Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998). Self-efficacy is a relatively malleable assessment of future capabilities (Bong &
Skaalvik, 2003). People adjust their beliefs based on past performance but, more
importantly, on their interpretation of past performance (Bandura, 1977). Two people
who experience the same objective success may come to different conclusions about their
ability to perform a similar task in the future. One factor that could influence a person’s

interpretations of success is savoring.

22

Savoring should be related to higher self-efficacy to the extent that it helps a
person understand how to reproduce a similar outcome. Paying conscious attention to
positive events should be an integral aspect of self-regulation towards personal goals.
Bandura stated that “People cannot influence their own motivation and actions very well
if they do not pay adequate attention to their own performances, the conditions under
which they occur, and the immediate and distal effects they produce” (1991 , p. 250). The
form of savoring that has the most potential to give people self-insight into their own
ability to produce successful outcomes is basking. Reaffirming one’s own strengths and
abilities should increase confidence in the ability to perform in the future. Therefore, it is
expected that basking in success, relative to being grateful, or not savoring at all, should
be associated with higher self-efficacy.

In addition to influencing self-beliefs, basking in success may actually influence
the level at which goals are set. Research suggests that people set goals higher than their
best previous performance (Locke & Latham, 2006). Basking in success is likely to
enhance perception of past performance and, therefore, may lead individuals to set higher
subsequent goals. The effect of basking on goal setting should be partially mediated by
self-efficacy, because past performance influences self-efficacy, and self-efficacious
individuals set higher goals (Wood & Locke, 1987).

H7: Basking in a personal success will be associated with higher self-efficacy

than will acknowledgement of others in response to a success.

H8: Basking in a personal success will be associated with higher performance

goals than will acknowledgement of others in response to a success.

23

H8a: The relationship between basking and performance goals will be partially

mediated by self-efficacy.

Positive Relations with Others

If basking enhances self-focused beliefs, then what are the consequences of
acknowledging others? Recognizing how the benevolence of others helped one succeed
should influence perceptions of oneself in relation to others. Acknowledgement of others
should enhance perceived relationship quality. “Positive-relations with others” is a facet
of psychological well-being that concerns whether a person is concerned with others’
welfare and perceives him or herself has having warm and trusting relationships (Ryff &
Keyes, 1995). Like self-efficacy, perceived positive relations with others is a non-
affective indicator of well-being. It promotes overall psychological ftmctioning that is
socially adaptive and somewhat independent of positive mood and emotions (Ryff,
1989)

Quality relationships with others are robustly related to physical health (Ryff &
Singer, 2000). The construct of positive relations with others, in particular, has been
associated with higher levels of oxytocin, an important component of stress relief.
Positive relations with others also displayed modest correlations (rs in the .208) with
sleep quality and diabetes, whereas SWB had no impact on health (Ryff, Burton, & Love,
2004). It is apparent that the factors that create happy individuals are not necessarily the
same ones that promote better functioning individuals. Although positive relations with
others has not been investigated with respect to school or work performance, it would not
be surprising if students or employees with more positive relations with others performed

better due to enhanced social and physical resources.

24

Acknowledgement of others should be associated with positive relations with
others because of social exchange norms. The recipient of altruistic behavior ofien feels
indebted and motivated to reciprocate. Gratitude has, hence, been referred to as “an
insurance policy for future cooperation” (Emmons & Crumpler, 2000). In one study a
gatitude intervention was found to increase self-reports of emotional and instrumental
support to others (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Gratitude fosters a sense of
benevolence and has been theorized to have a considerable influence on relational well-
being (Emmons & Crumpler, 2000). Therefore, it is hypothesized that acknowledgement
of others in response to a success will be more positively related to perceived relations
with others than will basking in the success or not savoring the success. It is important to
note that, in reality, there may be a reciprocal relationship between acknowledgment of
others and perceived relations with others. The present study, however, is concerned
primarily with the effects of savoring and examines only one direction of causation,
which is achieved by manipulating the behavior of acknowledging others.
H9: Acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success will be
associated with higher positive relations with others than will basking in success.
Individual Differences
There is some evidence that not all individuals are equally capable of savoring
(Bryant, 1989). Bryant and Veroff (2007) suggested that people with low self-esteem
may find self-focused savoring difficult, whereas people who distrust the world or others
may find other-focused savoring difficult. Additionally, an individual’s propensity to
engage in certain forms of savoring may depend on personality. One representation of

personality influences on savoring is presented in Figure l, modeled after the choice-

25

effectiveness distinction in the coping

    
    

Personality literature (Bolger & Zuckerman,

1995). Personality can influence (a)

the choice of savoring strategies in

 

which an individual engages or (b) the
savoring extent to which these strategies are
effective for an individual. Because

L l I I the present study randomly assigns

(a) Choice (b) Effectiveness individuals to a form of savoring, it is

Figure l. Personali influences on savoring .
ty not possrble to test whether people

with certain personality traits tend to engage in particular forms of savoring (i.e., choice).
What can be examined, however, is the extent to which personality influences the
effectiveness of savoring, as gauged by affective and motivational outcomes. Certain
personality characteristics may influence how well individuals are able to follow the
intervention or how authentic the savoring feels to them. If a personality trait enhances or
diminishes the savoring process, this can tested by looking at the interaction between the
savoring intervention and the trait.
Self-esteem

A person’s self-esteem may influence the effectiveness of an intervention that
encourages individuals to bask in their success. At first blush the evidence regarding
whether self-esteem would enhance or hinder savoring seems conflicting. Depressed
people, who are thought to have labile self-esteem, are more strongly impacted by

positive events than non-depressed people (N ezlek & Gable, 2001), and positive events

26

have a greater impact for low-PA individuals who seem to need a boost from their low
baseline of pleasure (Zautra et al., 2005). On the other hand, people with low self-esteem
are more likely to dampen their positive affect (Wood et al., 2003). A distinction between
level and contingency of self-esteem is useful. Depression is more closely related to the
fluctuation or contingency of self-esteem than level of self-esteem, which explains why
individuals with low self-esteem may have different reactions to positive events than
those with depression (Butler, Hokanson, & Flynn, 1994). As explained below, highly
varying self-esteem may promote reaction to successes, whereas low self-esteem would
have the opposite effect.

Contingency of self-esteem refers to the extent to which one’s self-worth is subject
to fluctuations dependent on certain events or salient self-aspects (Crocker, Luthaten,
Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Kernis, 2005). The relative stability of self-esteem can be
measured by collecting within-person measurements of momentary self-esteem level and
computing the standard deviation of these measurements (Kernis, 2003; Kernis, 2005).
Some researchers believe that there are meaningful covariates of fluctuations in self-
esteem. That is, self-esteem fluctuates dependent on events. Researchers have varied in
their conceptualization of self-esteem contingency and the existing measures are
reflective of these differences (Crocker & Knight, 2005). Whereas the Self-Esteem
Contingency Scale (Paradise & Kernis, 1998) purports to measure contingency, in
general, the Contingencies of Self-Worth scale (CSW; Crocker et al., 2003) measures the
extent to which self-esteem is contingent on events across specific life domains (e.g.,
academics, appearance, family support). According to this latter view, an individual’s

self-esteem may be contingent on one or more of these domains. An individual’s reaction

27

to an event depends on whether it falls within a domain of contingency. For example,
Crocker, Sommers, and Luhtanen (2002) found that the self-esteem of college seniors
increased after receiving news of acceptance to graduate school more strongly for those
seniors whose self-esteem depended on academic competence. If an event is within a
domain of contingency, an individual experiences intensified reactions to it (Greenier et
aL,1999)

According to the Crocker et al. view, contingent self-esteem is associated with
heightened ego involvement and self-enhancement in a specific domain (Crocker, et al.,
2003; Parker & Crocker, 2005). Thus, one would expect reactions to success to be more
extreme amongst individuals with self-esteem that is contingent in the domain of
achievement. In addition, the effects of self-focused savoring should be even greater for
these individuals because of a tendency to overgeneralize positive implications of
domain-relevant successes and engage in internal attributional style (Kernis, 2003). This
moderating effect of contingent self-esteem should be most prevalent for self-evaluations
(i.e., self-efficacy) and self-relevant outcomes (i.e., pride).

Level of self-esteem, which refers to typical or general feelings of self-worth, is a
distinct concept from self-esteem contingency (Kernis, 2003). Aside from contingencies
that may exist a in a person’s self-esteem a person can possess more or less self-esteem
overall. Self-esteem level has implications for an individual’s ability to engage in
basking. Most people engage in some level of self-enhancement on a regular basis
(Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989), but there is some evidence to suggest that high self-
esteem individuals are more highly motivated to self-enhance than low self-esteem

individuals (Brown & Gallagher, 1992), which may explain how they have achieved high

28

levels of self-esteem. In support of this notion, Wood and colleagues (2005) found across
three studies that following a success, high self-esteem was associated with a boost in
PA, positive self-relevant thoughts, and future performance expectations, whereas low-
self esteem was not. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the effectiveness of basking is
enhanced to the extent that an individual is high in their typical level of self-esteem.
Again, the outcomes relevant to the processes of self-enhancement are those that are self-
oriented in nature, self-efficacy and pride.

Lastly, it is important to consider the interaction between level and contingency
of self-esteem. Kemis and colleagues (2003, 2005) have demonstrated across numerous
studies and with respect to a variety of outcome variables (e.g., psychological well-being,
self-regulation) that self-esteem level and stability have both significant independent
effects and, in some cases, a significant interaction. Here, it is hypothesized that basking
in success will be most effective for those individuals who have contingent but typically
high self-esteem. These individuals are especially likely to base their self-esteem on
salient information about self-relevant events and cast this information in a positive light.

The following hypotheses predict moderating roles of both self-esteem level and
contingency in the relationship between basking and self-relevant positive outcomes. In
the case of emotions, self-esteem should be most relevant to authentic versus hubristic
pride. Self-esteem is thought to reflect confidence based on accomplishments, both of
which are aspects of authentic pride (Tracy & Robins, 2007a).

H10: Contingency of self-esteem moderates the effects of a basking intervention,

relative to an acknowledgment of others intervention and a control condition, on

29

authentic pride and self-efficacy, such that these effects are stronger as

contingency of self-esteem increases.

H11: Level of self-esteem moderates the effects of a basking intervention, relative

to an acknowledgment of others intervention and a control condition, on authentic

pride and self-efficacy, such that these effects are stronger as self-esteem

increases.

H12: Level and contingency of self-esteem interact to moderate the effects of a

basking intervention, relative to an acknowledgment of others intervention and a

control condition, on authentic pride and self-efficacy, such that these effects are

stronger as self-esteem becomes higher in level and more contingent.
Narcissism

Narcissism entails excessive self admiration. A few of the diagnostic criteria for
clinical narcissism include a grandiose sense of self-importance or uniqueness, a
preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success or power, entitlement or the
expectation of special favors without assuming reciprocal responsibilities, and
interpersonal exploitativeness (Raskin & Terry, 1988). The measurement of narcissism
has been applied successfully to normal populations. Narcissists generally have a
negative interpersonal orientation; the trait is negatively correlated with a variety of
behaviors including empathy, intimacy, commitment, caring, and communal orientation
(Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002). Narcissists are believed to have a difficult time
feeling gratitude toward others because they are inclined to feel a sense of entitlement

with respect to any benefits received (Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003).

30

Therefore, an intervention designed to induce acknowledgement of others is expected to
have less of an impact on narcissistic individuals for the other-relevant outcomes.

H13: Narcissism moderates the effects of an acknowledgement of others

intervention, relative to a basking intervention and a control condition, on

gratitude and positive relations with others, such that these effects become weaker

with increasing levels of narcissism.

Narcissism may also have implications for basking in success. Individuals may
vary in the extent to which their basking is based in reality (Gramzow & Willard, 2006).
A well-established research finding is that people tend to have self-serving biases toward
attributing success to internal causes (Zuckerman, 1979). A small amount of positive
cognitive bias is probably normal, if not adaptive, for building self-esteem (Cummins &
Nistico, 2001). In its most self-aggrandizing form, however, it is possible that self-
congratulation in response to a positive event could resemble narcissism. Research
suggests that narcissism is not exactly a case of true high self-esteem but rather defensive
self-enhancement (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991). Tracy & Robins (2007a) found
that narcissism correlated more strongly with hubristic pride than authentic pride while
partialling out self-esteem. The opposite pattern was found with regard to self-esteem and
pride while partialling out narcissism. Narcissism would moderate the impact of basking
primarily with respect to hubristic pride. Additionally, because narcissism is associated
with a tendency to engage in high levels of self-enhancement, it is expected to moderate
the impact of basking on self-efficacy.

H14: Narcissism moderates the effects of a basking intervention, relative to an

acknowledgment of others intervention and a control condition, on hubristic pride

31

and self-efficacy such that these effects are stronger with increasing levels of

narcissism.
Trait gratitude

Although there is evidence for the validity of gratitude as both a trait and a state
(McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004), gratitude has been mostly researched at the trait
level where it is conceptualized as an affective trait. The influence of any one gratitude-
relevant event on gratitude is likely to differ depending on one’s level of trait gratitude.
However, there are two rival hypotheses on the nature of the trait’s moderation. The more
intuitive conductance hypothesis predicts that trait gratitude predisposes individuals to
experience grateful affect given a relevant situation (Watkins, Woodward, Stone, &
Kolts, 2003). In this case, one would expect trait gratitude to amplify the effects of an
intervention inducing acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success on
gratitude. According to the resistance hypothesis, however, grateful individuals are
expected to have such high baseline levels of grateful emotion that responses to events
are actually weaker than the reactions of less dispositionally grateful individuals
(McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004). Phrased differently, proponents of this view
argue that low trait gratitude necessitates a larger amount of gratitude-eliciting factors
(i.e., events, people to be thankful to) to achieve the same amount of gratitude. The rival
predictions are represented in Figure 2. The resistance hypothesis is consistent with the
notion that one’s level of trait gratitude is best indicated by one’s typical or baseline state,
whereas the conductance hypothesis implies that trait gratitude is primarily a reflection of
reactions to gratitude-relevant situations. McCullough et al. (2004) provided initial

support in favor of the resistance hypothesis. Because the McCullough et al. study is the

32

only study thus far to pit the conductance and resistance hypotheses against one another
in the context of gratitude, it is useful to once again test the competing hypotheses. If the
conductance hypothesis is true, trait gratitude will amplify the effects of an
acknowledgement of others intervention on gratitude and perceived positive relations
with others, whereas if the resistance hypothesis is true, trait gratitude will weaken the
effects of such an intervention on both of these other-relevant outcomes. Although both
hypotheses are plausible, they represent incompatible conceptualizations of a trait and, as
such, only one can be supported by the data.
H15 (conductance): Trait gratitude moderates the effects of an acknowledgement
of others intervention, relative to a basking intervention and a control condition,
on gratitude and positive relations with others, such that these effects are stronger
with increasing levels of trait gratitude.
H16 (resistance): Trait gratitude moderates the effects of an acknowledgement of
others intervention, relative to a basking intervention and a control condition, on
gratitude and relations with others, such that these effects are weaker with

increasing levels of trait gratitude.

33

 

 

Resistance Trait LOW Trait High
A0 -------------------------- A0 --------------------------
C --------------------------
c ..........................
Conductance Trait Low Trait High
A0 --------------------------
A0 --------------------------

c -------------------------- c --------------------------

 

 

 

Figure 2. The resistance and conductance hypotheses for trait gratitude.
Expected mean levels of state gratitude as a function of trait gratitude (low or high) and the absence (C =

control condition) versus presence (A0 = appreciation of others intervention) of gratitude-relevant

s ituations

34

 

Summary of the Present Study
The present study is narrow with respect to the focal construct of interest. Within
the concept of savoring, of particular concern are two forms of savoring that can be
accomplished intrapersonally, in the absence of others. These are basking and
acknowledgement of others. These forms of savoring are operationalized through the
mode of writing, as opposed to other ways that individuals could savor, such as thinking
or talking out loud. A number of hypotheses have been offered regarding the effects of
basking in success and acknowledging others after success. The outcomes to be
investigated include subjective well-being (PA and life satisfaction), motivational
constructs (self-efficacy and performance goals), and social aspects of psychological
well-being (positive relations with others). The purpose of the present study is not to
prove discriminant validity of these measures, as they are sure to have some overlap both
i n theory and in measurement, but to Show that savoring behavior has positive
implications for a variety of outcomes. The full set of hypotheses is summarized in Table
1 - A simplified representation of hypotheses is provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The
mediated relationships are presented in Figure 3 and the moderated relations are
presented in Figure 4. Relationships that are hypothesized equally for both savoring
c Omditions are evaluated against a control group. For sake of simplicity, hypotheses that
predict a stronger relationship in one savoring condition (relative to the same relationship
i n the other savoring condition) are indicated in the figures by the presence of a

1‘ e l ationship for that condition (versus the absence of a relationship in the other

cC>mdition).

35

 

Subjective Well-being

 

1

Positive affect will be higher for individuals who write about a personal success
compared to individuals in a control group.

 

 

 

Life satisfaction will be higher for individuals who write about a personal success

 

 

 

2
compared to individuals in a control group.

Causal Attributions

3 Basking in a personal success will be positively related to internal attributions of
causality, relative to acknowledgement of others in response to the success.

4 Acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success will be positively
related to external attributions of causality, relative to basking in the success.

 

 

Emotions & Causal Attributions

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success will be associated
with higher gratitude than will basking in success.
5a The relationship between acknowledgement of others and gratitude will be
mediated by external attributions for success.
6 Basking in a personal success will be associated with higher authentic and hubristic
pride than will acknowledgement of others in response to a success.
6a The relationship between basking and authentic pride will be mediated by effort
attributions.
6b The relationship between basking and hubristic pride will be mediated by ability

 

attributions.

 

LMotivational Constructs

 

{ 7

Basking in a personal success will be associated with higher self-efficacy than will
acknowledgement of others in response to a success.

 

\

8

Basking in a personal success will be associated with higher performance goals than
will acknowledgement of others in response to a success.

 

\

8a

The relationship between basking and performance goals will be partially mediated
by self-efficacy.

 

 

\

_:sychological well-being

 

9
\

 

Acknowledgement of others in response to a personal success will be associated
with higher positive relations with others than will basking in success.

 

 

 

Tab 1e 1. Hypotheses tested in present study

36

 

Individual Difference Moderators

 

10

Contingency of self-esteem moderates the effects of a basking intervention,
relative to an acknowledgment of others intervention and a control
condition, on authentic pride and self-efficacy, such that these effects are
stronger as contingency of self-esteem increases.

 

11

Level of self-esteem moderates the effects of a basking intervention,
relative to an acknowledgment of others intervention and a control
condition, on authentic pride and self-efficacy, such that these effects are
stronger as self-esteem increases.

 

12

Level and contingency of self-esteem interact to moderate the effects of a
basking intervention, relative to an acknowledgment of others intervention
and a control condition, on authentic pride and self-efficacy, such that these
effects are stronger as self-esteem becomes higher in level and more
contingent.

 

13

Narcissism moderates the effects of an acknowledgement of others
intervention, relative to a basking intervention and a control condition, on
gratitude and positive relations with others, such that these effects become
weaker with increasing levels of narcissism.

 

l4

Narcissism moderates the effects of a basking intervention, relative to an
acknowledgment of others intervention and a control condition, on hubristic
pride and self-efficacy such that these effects are stronger with increasing
levels of narcissism.

 

15

Trait gratitude moderates the effects of an acknowledgement of others
intervention, relative to a basking intervention and a control condition, on
gratitude and positive relations with others, such that these effects are
stronger with increasing levels of trait gratitude.

 

 

l6

 

Trait gratitude moderates the effects of an acknowledgement of others
intervention, relative to a basking intervention and a control condition, on
gratitude and relations with others, such that these effects are weaker with
increasing levels of trait gratitude.

 

Table l cont’d. Hypotheses tested in present study

37

 

83......3 .5952. mecca—o.— uoE-BE can .35. 33852:: .m onE

 

2060 4:3 mecca—om 3383m—

 

 

 

 

opEETIr— mcozsntx< $.5me II

 

sesameam a:

 

 

ea? 2.28m

 

beam 23ch mcousntua 3:540.

 

 

ESE USE—flu aoeBEa team

 

 

777 7??

 

£80 oofigofiom
i— / cacamaem

 

9050 we
Eofiwco§>o§o<

 

 

 

 

mcmxmam

 

 

38

33st!» 5952. 28:29. 3.22.2: E... .995. 003852.»: .v Semi

 

20:8 5:.» macaw—3L

 

 

usage

I

 

 

seesaw
sac.

 

 

 

 

Ii V /

 

 

 

 

cozoflmtwm obi

 

Hoots o>Emom _

 

oEE Bates: t—

 

aura 03:05.3.

 

 

 

 

 

€050 do
Eovaoquc—o<

 

 

 

fEmfifloBvL

 

 

 

 

 

cacao—Efrem _ ll

 

28w oofiEofom _

  

 

map—mum

 

 

 

 

_o>o_ Eooumoiom
Scum—:28 Ecoamftom

 

 

39

METHOD
Overview

The participants of the present study were high school students who had all
recently experienced the success of being admitted to college. They were contacted via e-
mail by the large Midwestern university that admitted them and asked to participate in a
study on student experiences and opinions. Only students who had responded positively
to their admissions offer by returning a final deposit for attendance were invited to
participate. The extent to which those students who volunteered to participate savored
their college admission was manipulated over the course of two days.

A primary strength of the study design is that savoring was manipulated instead of
self-reported. The research to-date that has focused on savoring, as it is conceptualized in
the present study, has correlated self-reported savoring with recalled duration of
enjoyment (Bryant & Veroff, 22007). An unfortunate consequence of the latter design is
that correlations can be artificially inflated when participants recall the positive event,
savoring, and emotional outcomes all at the same time.

A second, unique strength of the study design is that participants were given a
common event to savor as opposed to self-selecting an event. Most research examining
reminiscence and appreciation has allowed participants to choose an event from their past
which can lead to large variance in the types of experiences reported (e.g., Burton &
King, 2004; Emmons & McCullough, 2003). It is then difficult to measure quantity of
savoring, because specific savoring behaviors (e.g., telling oneself how proud one is) may
or may not be applicable. By narrowing the focus of investigation to one type of event,

the forms of savoring that are relevant to that event should be comparable across people.

40

As a result, there is greater control over the nature of savoring that is engaged in by
participants.
Sample

Out of the 2,999 students who were sent an invitation to participate, at least 45 did
not have working e-mail addresses. Participation was capped once the desired number of
participants had indicated their willingness to participate. A total of 275 responses (9% of
invited students) were recorded. Thirty-seven left the study after the first day and thus did
not provide usable data (13% attrition). Attrition rates by condition were as follows:
10.5% control, 12.9% basking, 17% acknowledgment of others. One student was dropped
who indicated minimal English skills, 5 were removed because of condition
contamination caused by technical malfirnctions, 2 were removed who did not complete
one of the writing tasks, and 5 were removed because of missing responses to entire
scales needed for the primary analyses.

The final sample consisted of 225 students, 73% of which were female. The
majority of respondents was 18 years old (97%), lived in the United States (98%),
indicated English as their primary language (90%), and was Caucasian (87%). Other
ethnic groups that participated were Asian (6%), Hispanic (3%), and African-American
(2%). '

There was some variation across participants in the length of time between their
notice of university admission and the study. Students learned of their admission between
one to seven months prior to being contacted for the study, with an average period of five
months. They received $10 in exchange for their participation.

Design and Procedure

41

Eligible participants (i.e., those who were accepted for admission) received an e-
mail from the university broadly describing the study and requesting their participation.
A link was provided where they could view the informed consent for the study before
deciding to participate. They were asked to begin the study within a week of receiving the
e-mail. The study utilized a three-group posttest design with random assignment.
Participants who experienced the success of being accepted into the university were
randomly assigned to partake in one of three conditions: a basking intervention, an
acknowledgement of others intervention, or a control condition.

The manipulation and measures to test the present hypotheses were administered
over the course of two consecutive days. On the first day, participants completed a 10-
minute writing task online followed by an assessment of narcissism and self-esteem. The
content of participants’ writing was determined by the question prompts they received,
which varied according to the condition to which they were assigned. On Day 2,
participants completed another lO-minute writing task on the same topic with slightly
varied instructions to discourage habituation and boredom. Participants also completed
surveys that contained self-report measures of outcomes, locus of causality, manipulation
checks, control variables, and trait gratitude.

Measures
Outcomes

Positive Affect. Affect “at this moment” was assessed using the 20-item Positive
Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Each
item on this scale is an adjective describing a feeling state, such as “alert,” “proud,” or

“inspired.” Participants were prompted to indicate to what extent they feel this way (1 =

42

very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely). Reliability for the PANAS was a = .89. The
complete measure is provided in Appendix A.

Pride. State pride was assessed using Tracy and Robins’ (2007) l4-item measure.
Respondents were presented with different adjective words. This scale has the advantage
of distinguishing between authentic (e.g., “successful”) and hubristic pride (e. g.
“conceited”) based on the adjectives. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which
they “feel this way at this moment” (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely). The
authentic and hubristic pride had reliabilities of a = .91 and .85, respectively. The
complete measure is provided in Appendix A.

State Gratitude. State gratitude was assessed using three gratitude-related
adjectives (grateful, thankful, appreciative). Participants in the present study were asked
to respond on a 5-point scale how they “feel at this moment” (1 = very slightly or not at
all to 5 = extremely) to be consistent with the PA and pride scales. The reliability of this
scale was a = .95. The complete measure is provided in Appendix A.

Life Satisfaction. Life satisfaction was assessed using the 5-item Satisfaction With
Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). A sample item is “I feel
as though the conditions of my life are excellent.” Participants in the present study used a
5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The reliability of the
life satisfaction scale was a = .77. The complete measure is provided in Appendix B.

Academic Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured specific to the college setting
using a 4-item scale adapted from Wood and Locke (1987). A sample item is “I am

confident in my ability to succeed as a college student.” Participants used a 5-point

43

response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The reliability observed for
the present scale was a = .75. The complete measure is provided in Appendix C.

Performance goals. Participants’ goal-setting was measured with a 4-item scale
pertaining to their grade goals (Wood & Locke, 1987). The items ask for the GPA that
they hope to make, that they would be minimally satisfied with, that they would expect,
and that they would actually try for. In the present study, the items were adapted to reflect
grade goals for the first semester of college. A sample item is “What GPA do you expect
to get your first semester of college?” The scale reliability was a = .79. The complete
measure is provided in Appendix C.

Positive relations with others. Participants’ perceptions of their positive relations
with others were measured with a 14-item scale constructed by Ryff (1989). Eight items
that referenced fi'iendships, specifically, were revised to refer to interpersonal
relationships, in general. A sample revised item is “I feel like I get a lot out of my
interpersonal relationships.” Participants used a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Observed reliability was a = .87. The complete measure
is provided in Appendix D.

Locus of causality. The locus of causality that participants perceived for the
success during the writing exercise was assessed using nine items adapted from the
Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale (Lefcourt, Baeyer, Ware, & Cox,
1979). The original scale was divided into attributions made with respect to successes and
failures in achievement and social domains. For the present study only the achievement
successes were relevant. The original scale was designed to tap into respondents’

attributional tendencies and not their responses to a particular success. Items were

44

modified accordingly to correspond to college admission. Lastly, the original scale
measured internal attributions with two subscales (ability and effort) and external
attributions with two subscales (task characteristics and luck). The latter subscales
reflected sources of external attribution that were not relevant to appreciating others
(whereas ability and effort are both conceptually relevant to basking). Therefore, the task
characteristics and luck subscales were replaced with a subscale reflecting the construct
of attributions to others, which served as the measure of external attributions. The
complete modified measure is provided in Appendix E. Reliabilities were .86, .81, and
.84 for the ability, effort, and others attribution measures, respectively.
Experimental Manipulation

The intervention was modeled after the expressive writing paradigm (Pennebaker
& Beall, 1986). In the original 1986 study, participants wrote about a traumatic
experience for 15 minutes a day for four consecutive days and showed marked
improvements in health. Since that study, the paradigm has been adapted for a variety of
purposes including having people write about their most positive experiences (Kloss &
Lisman, 2002; Marlo & Wagner, 1999), their best possible selves (Harrist, Carlozzi,
McGovern, & Harrist, 2007; King, 2001), and their romantic relationships (Slatcher &
Pennebaker, 2006). A meta-analysis on all available studies employing expressive writing
(85% in which participants wrote about a negative topic) indicated that effect sizes do not
significantly vary depending on the valence of the writing topic (Frattaroli, 2006).

Studies have varied in the length, number, and spacing of their writing sessions.
Spacing of sessions (i.e., daily vs. weekly) has been found to make no difference for

effect sizes, whereas findings regarding the number and length of sessions are mixed

45

(Frattaroli, 2006). Whether or not participants are allowed to switch topics (i.e., events or
themes) over the course of the study is less important than whether they are given
instructions on whether it is acceptable to do so (i.e., instructions help). In the present
study, participants focused on one topic, their acceptance to college. However, some
authors have expressed concerns for habituation effects when thinking about positive
events (e.g., Duckworth, Steen, & Seligman, 2005). On a related note, Frattaroli
wondered whether there might be diminishing returns for expressive writing. In order to
reduce concerns of habituation, the questions that were given as a guide for participants
were different each day to add variety, and the writing exercises were limited to a
relatively short length of ten minutes daily over the course of two days.

According to many characteristics, this study would be considered a minority in
the expressive writing paradigm. It would be among the 15% of studies in which
participants write about a positive topic. Additionally, the present study explicitly
instructed participants to self-reflect and presented guided questions to do so. Only fifty-
percent of expressive writing studies have given directed questions and even fewer (4%)
have given instructions that were designed to promote cognitive processing or meaning
(Fattaroli, 2006).

Participants in all three groups were instructed to write for ten minutes. Only
participants in the experimental conditions were prompted to think and write about their
admission to the university. The basking group was encouraged to reflect upon
themselves and their role in the success, whereas the acknowledgement of others group
was encouraged to consider people who have helped them along the way to success. Both

savoring conditions (i.e., basking and acknowledgment) were asked to write about their

46

positive emotions, because this reflects a component common to all forms of savoring.
The control group wrote about unrelated topics, including descriptions of the room in
which they were sitting and of a tree which they had seen. The full set of instructions is
provided in Appendix F.

In order to provide evidence for the construct validity of the savoring
manipulation, participants completed two scales devised by Bryant and Veroff (2007):
self-congratulation, and counting blessings. These scales represent distinct savoring
strategies, consisting of a grouping of thoughts or behaviors in which a person engages in
reaction to a positive event. Basking in success should be related to the self-
congratulation scale, whereas acknowledgement of others in response to a success should
be more closely related to the counting blessings scale. Savoring at its broadest
conceptual level (i.e., regardless of the form) should be closely related to the construct of
positive cognitive rumination. Feldman and colleagues (2008) have devised a scale that
decomposes responses to positive affect into those that are emotion-focused, self-focused,
and dampening. According to these authors, an example of emotion-focused rumination
would be savoring the moment when one is happy, whereas an example of self-focused
rumination would be thinking to oneself how proud one feels. Based on their
conceptualization of rumination, basking in success was expected to correlate with self-
focused rumination, and both basking and acknowledgement of others were expected to
correlate with emotion-focused rumination.

Self-congratulation. The self-congratulation scale from Bryant and Veroff’s Ways
of Savoring Checklist (WOSC; 2007) was administered to participants. One item was

omitted that did not make sense in the context of the present experiment (“I thought about

47

what a good time I was having”). The six remaining items were adapted to make them
more specific to the success being savored. For example, an original item was “I thought
about what a triumph it was” and the newly worded item was “I thought about what a
triumph it was to be accepted to MSU”. Responses were made on a 5-point scale (1 = not
at all to 5 = to a great extent). The complete measure is provided in Appendix G.
Reliability of the measure was a = .87.

Counting Blessings. An adapted version of the counting blessings scale from
Bryant and Veroff’s Ways of Savoring Checklist (WOSC; 2007) was administered to
participants. When possible, items were made more specific to college admission. One
item with religious connotations (“I said a prayer of thanks”) was deleted because of the
confound that it presented (i.e., participants’ spirituality). Three new items were added
that were consistent with Bryant and Veroff s conceptualization of counting blessings
(e.g., “I reminded myself to thank someone later”). Responses were made on a 5-point
scale (1 = not at all to 5 = to a great extent). The full scale, including the three new items,
was pilot tested in a prior data collection by the present author. Reliability was a = .84 in
the pilot test and a = .80 in the main study. The original items, their changes, and new
items are included in Appendix G.

Responses to Positive Aflect (RPA) Questionnaire. Positive cognitive rumination
was measured using the 4-item self-focus subscale and 5-item emotion-focus subscale of
the RPA (F eldman, Joorrnann, & Johnson, 2008). The instructions were modified for the
present study to ask participants how frequently during the course of the study they had

the types of thoughts indicated by the items. The complete questionnaire is provided in

48

Appendix H. Reliabilities for self-focused and emotion-focused response to positive
affect were .87 and .87, respectively.
Controls

Previous causal attributions. Participants responded to two items intended to
measure recollections of their internal and external attributions when they first learned of
their acceptance to the university. They responded on a 5-point scale ( l = not at all to 5 =
to a great extent). The items are provided in Appendix 1.

Previous savoring. Participants’ savoring behaviors following their initial
notification of acceptance, before partaking in the study, were assessed using a number of
items created for the present study. They were designed to tap into a wide range of
savoring forms, including basking and acknowledgement of others, while limiting the
number of questions. The complete measure is provided in Appendix I. The reliability
was a = .89.

Significance of success. The effectiveness of the savoring manipulations could
vary as a function of the significance of admission. The significance of the success is
expected to vary depending on the student’s desire to attend the university. Individuals
who do not want to attend the college may find it difficult to savor their acceptance.
Participants were presented with one item that asked them to rank MSU in terms of their
preferences for colleges (1 = first to 4 = fourth or below). Perceived success was
examined in one item that asked participants to report the extent to which they considered

their admission a personal success (1 = slightly or not at all to 5 = very much so).

49

Time elapsed since success. Participants were asked to report the month and year
that they initially learned of their acceptance to the university. To the extent that an event
is more recent, savoring manipulations may have more of an impact.

Individual Diflerences

Self-esteem. Participants’ typical levels of self-esteem were measured using
Rosenberg’s lO-item Self-Esteem Scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1965). A sample item is “I
take a positive attitude toward myself.” Responses were made on a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The reliability was a = .86. The firll measure is
included in Appendix J.

Participants’ contingency of self-esteem was assessed using the 5-item
Contingency of Self-Worth Scale (Crocker et al., 2003). A sample item is “Doing well in
school gives me a sense of self-respect.” Responses were made on a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Reliability was a = .76. The full measure is
provided in Appendix K.

Narcissism. Narcissism was measured using the 37-item version of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (N PI) developed by Emmons (1987). A sample item is
“I think I am a special person.” The response scale was true-false and the reliability was a
= .77. The full measure is included in Appendix L.

Trait gratitude. Trait gratitude was measured using the 6-item Gratitude
Questionnaire (GQ-6; McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002). A sample item is “I have
so much in life to be thankful for”. To remain consistent with other measures in the study,
responses were on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Reliability was a = .85. The full measure is included in Appendix M.

50

RESULTS
Manipulation checks

As a first step in exploring differences between groups, self-report scores on
preestablished savoring scales were examined. Participants were asked to report the
extent to which they experienced a number of thoughts during or after the writing
exercise. If the basking manipulation were successful, then scores on Self-Congratulation
would be highest in that group. If the acknowledgment of others manipulation were
successful, then scores on Counting Blessings would be highest in that group. Results
indicated that although the anticipated pattern of means was found, there was no
significant difference among the three groups on either Self-Congratulation, F (2,222) =
.15, p = .86, or Counting Blessings, F (2,222) = .38, p = .69. There were also no
appreciable differences among groups for self-focused and emotion-focused responses to
positive affect, F (2,222) = .08, p = .92 and F (2,222) = .20, p = .82, respectively.

One possible explanation for these results is that participants in the control task
were confused. They may have wondered why they received questions about their
thoughts on university admission when, in fact, they had been thinking about their
virtually unrelated assigned topics during the writing task (e.g., trees). This possibility is
supported by open-ended comments. Some participants may have made sense of the
questions by answering them with respect to their experiences outside of the experiment
while others may have followed the directions more exactly. Higher variance was
observed amongst control participants compared to the experimental groups on these self-
report measures of savoring, which may be reflective not of true variance on these

constructs, but of contamination due to differences in following instructions.

51

The major evidence that participants did indeed savor admission to the university
during the experimental task is offered by the content of their writing during the
experiment. Two graduate students read a subset of the essays and independently
categorized each according to whether it was most representative of basking,
acknowledgment of others, or the control task. Additionally, they provided ratings of how
well each essay conformed to each of the three categories on a four-point scale (1 = does
not resemble this category whatsoever to 4 =fits perfectly). Raters were provided with
descriptions of basking, acknowledgment of others, and a control topic (see Appendix N).

Coders were in agreement for their categorization of 41 out of the 42 writing
samples that they examined (98% of the time), resulting in a Cohen’s Kappa of .96. For
all 41 cases on which they agreed, they correctly identified to which group the
participants belonged (i.e., basking, acknowledgment or control). In addition, the coders
displayed a high level of consistency in their representativeness ratings. The intraclass
coefficients were .92 for basking, .94 for acknowledgment, and 1.00 for the control
group. Thus, the coders not only classified the writing samples similarly but they also
reported similar ratings of how characteristic each writing sample was of the three
conditions.

The consistency in ratings justified the averaging of representativeness scores for
each writing sample across raters. These average scores offer support for the validity of
the manipulation. As expected, writing samples from the basking group were rated
substantially higher on basking representativeness than writing samples from the other
two groups, F (2,39) = 82.06, p <.001. In a similar fashion, writing samples from the

acknowledgment group were rated highest on acknowledgment representativeness,

52

F (2,39) = 318.72, p < .001, and writing samples from the control group were rated
highest on control representativenessz. Means and standard deviations of

representativeness ratings are provided in Table 2.

 

Ratings of Independent Coders

 

 

Assigned Condition Basking Acknowledgment of Others Control

Basking (N = 14) 3.50 (.59) 1.25 (.47) 1.00 (.00)
Acknowledgment of Others (N = 14) 1.64 (.72) 3.82 (.32) 1.00 (.00)
Control (N = 14) 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) 4.00 (.00)

 

Table 2. Manipulation check conducted by independent raters.

Values represent ratings, averaged across writing samples, of how well writing samples that corresponded
to an assigned condition represented that condition as well as the other conditions. Standard deviations are
in parentheses.

Discriminant Validity of Outcome Measures

A number of the outcome measures assessed components of well-being and
motivation and, as such, were conceptually related. Discriminant validity was evaluated
in confirmatory factor analyses performed in LISREL 8.72 (Jdreskog & Sdrbom, 2005)
using maximum likelihood estimation. There was a minimal amount of item-level
missing data (<1 %) that was imputed using multiple imputation procedures with an
expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. A combination of fit indices was used to
evaluate goodness of fit. While a nonsignificant chi-square indicates good fit, Hatcher
(1994) suggested that fit is reasonable if xz/Z is less than two. Hu and Bentler (1994) also
provided guidelines such that a model has adequate fit if SRMR is less than .08, and
either the CFI is equal to or greater than .95 or RMSEA is less than or equal to .06.

The first two models examined the structure of the six well-being outcomes:
positive affect (PA), authentic pride, hubristic pride, gratitude, life satisfaction, and

perceived relations with others (PRO). A six-factor model with items as indicators of

 

2 . . . .
There was no Within-group vanance on control group representativeness; thus an ANOVA could not be
computed.

53

their respective scales (the latent factors) and correlated factors provided reasonably good
fit to the data, x2(974, N = 225) = 1799.71, f/df = 1.85, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06, SRMR
= .07. An alternative one-factor model tested by constraining the correlations between
factors to one did not provide adequate fit, 12(989, N = 225) = 6185.45, XZ/df= 6.25, CFI
= .80, RMSEA = .15, SRMR = .14. The one-factor model fit the data significantly worse
than the six-factor model, 12(15, N = 225) = 4385.74, p < .001, indicating that
measurement of six distinct well-being constructs is justified. The latent correlations
between the well-being measures are provided in Table 3 (standard errors of estimates in

parentheses).

 

PA Pride- Pride- Gratitude Life Sat.
Hub. Auth.

 

Pride-Hub. .20 (.07)

Pride-Auth. .80 (.03) .14 (.07)

Gratitude .57 (.05) -.O4 (.07) .61 (.05)

Life Sat. .27 (.07) .08 (.08) .36 (.05) .38 (.07)

PRO .20 (.07) -.19 (.07) .30 (.07) .32 (.07) .53 (.06)

Table 3. Correlation of latent well-being factors

The second two models examined the structure of the two motivational outcomes:
self-efficacy and performance goals (8 items in total). A two-factor model with items as
indicators of their respective scales (the latent factors) and correlated factors had
adequate fit, {(19, N = 225) = 34.24, far: 1.79, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, SRMR =
.06. The alternative one-factor model tested by constraining the correlation between the
two factors to equal one resulted in poor fit, 12(20, N = 225) = 397.42, f/df = 19.87, CFI
= .58, RMSEA = .29, SRMR = .18. The difference between the two-factor and one-factor

model was significant, X2(1, N = 225) = 363.02, p < .001, indicating that self-efficacy and

54

performance goals are best measured separately. The latent correlation between the two
constructs was .29 (s.e. = .07)
Controlling for Extraneous Variables

Before analyses were conducted, the groups were examined for differences on
several perceived characteristics of the writing tasks. A MANOVA was conducted for
task difficulty, meaningfulness, and enjoyment and revealed significant differences
across conditions, Wilk’s lambda = .67, F (6,438) = 15.99, p < .001. Univariate tests
revealed that conditions did not significantly differ in average levels of task enjoyment,
F (2,221) = 2.60, p = .08, suggesting that controlling for this characteristic was not
necessary. There were no significant differences between the basking and
acknowledgment of others groups on any of the characteristics. Both savoring conditions
(basking and acknowledgment of others) were rated as more difficult and meaningful
than the control task, F (2,221) = 11.04 and 26.45, respectively, p < .001. Whereas task
difficulty was largely unrelated to the outcomes investigated (with the exception of
perceived relations with others at r = .30), task meaningfulness was related to a number
of the outcomes (see , which presents task characteristic ratings and their correlations
with outcomes). Despite this finding, the decision was made to not control for
meaningfulness, because one manner by which savoring should operate is through
providing a meaningful experience to individuals.

Characteristics of the event to be savored were examined, as well. The groups did
not differ in the extent to which they perceived their admission to be a success, F (2,222)

= .02, p = .99, ranked the university highly in their preferences, F(2,222) = .29, p = .75,

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o .- 5 g g .5
g c: if? g E E 5? .ED :3 I9
8 ° °° -‘2 0 3 .2 2 :3 °
9 IE g e g a a a: g e g
x S '5 25 m 'z: 2 ‘: ‘3 -- 3:- J:
a .r: S g 92 a *5 a “f, 8 3 .=
E— U 0 M SD n. ..r O < I m 0 o. 3
B 2.72 .79
Enjoyment A0 2.97 .95 I I 1 1 - 01 05 - 08 13" 02 06
C 3.01 .74
B 2.41 1.0
Difficulty A0 2.05 I .0 .02 -.01 .03 -.05 .10 .01 -.05 -. 14"
C 1.67 .86
B 3.10 .81
Meaningfulness A0 3 .23 .99 .30* .08 .17 .20“ .03 .17“ .14“ .16*
C 2.25 .96

 

Table 4. Perceived task characteristics and their correlations with outcomes.
‘ p< .05. N = 224-225. B = Basking, A0 = Acknowledgment of Others, C = Control

savored their admission to the university prior to the study, F(2,221) = .01, p = .99, or
attributed their admission to external factors prior to the study, F(2,221) = .53, p = .59.
The results did suggest that there was a significant difference between groups in the
extent to which they recalled attributing their success to internal factors prior to the study
when they first learned of their admission, F (2,221) = 3.48, p = .03. Both experimental
groups, recalled marginally higher internal attributions than the control group, p = .06 and
p = .07 for basking and acknowledgment of others, respectively. The means of event- ‘
related perceptions and behaviors, as well as their correlation with outcomes, are
presented in Table 5. The first three variables displayed moderate correlations with
outcomes and were substantially interrelated. Perceived success of admission correlated r
= .51 with personal ranking of the university and r = .65 with previous savoring. The
latter two variables correlated r = .37. To avoid redundancy, perceived success but not
the latter two variables was controlled in the analyses. This statistical control procedure

removes variance in outcomes due to perceived success of the achievement, thus, has the

56

advantage of improving the sensitivity of analyses by decreasing the within-group error
term. Participants’ recollections of their causal attributions when they first learned of
their acceptance were also statistically controlled because they were related to a number
of outcomes and, as mentioned above, prior internal attributions varied slightly between
groups. In general, the practice of supplementing random assignment with statistical
control of variables is recommended when groups differ by chance on an important

variable or when adding a predictor can decrease error in the model (Darlington, 1990).

57

62.50 H U .a-nébue EoE»?.3o5.o< u O< .9:me u m .mNN-VNN M Z .mo.vq_.
85825 .53 macaw—ocean :2: can BEE—EQEeSA—ouca noun—onamoouam .m 038-

 

No.“

mN.N

U

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . .- .- . . . . . . . masseuse
.ee : 8 a: we 8 8 .8 2 8 .2 mm“. Mm 0M accesses
NB. NN.¢ U wflOSSDw—fiw
8. EN. .2. *2. .2. .3. 8.- .2. .3. *2. 8. mm“ WW“ om assessed
a. S. S.- 3. 2.- ac. 3.- on. NM. 2. mm. MM” mm ow access
* _.. a. * a e * a a Vm. w_.m m 33>on
3. 3m u see
8. RN. 8. .2. S.- eo. ax.- ..t. :2. .2. :. 5. e2 o< base:
ea. 2% m . .3
8.2 Cam 0 mesa
S .8 8- .8 NT 8 as. .2 a: 8 LN New.” WM OM 8385a
QM E 52200 o=m_-_Bo§_5
ww WM ww mm mm mm mm ww mmm mm .55
payoumemmwaapq pm reef-a
a. u a. H a. n.- M. u w a u. a 9 mm m: l M.
n n n o a an .A m, u n a a
"9. D. De. 0 l. u. D. 1
o o o s o a a .0.-
u u u u

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

beams-“as

QN.

mo.

hr...
3.-
5.-

mm.

spud onsuqnu

apud onuaume

.Ecowfic «5 mac.“ 3:82 9a Anna—a $53:on muEznazox .32—a .8 _o>o_ 3. 2: 8 EnouEwfi 93 Ron 5 80:29:00
33:33.3— 3: .2333: FEE—Sm .232 65:295-583..— .o oBQ-r

uonowa epnmeJfi

suonnqgme memo

“09009119 110149

suonnqune Anuqe

8333.8

muse-sues am

page aAugsod

suogmquue |ew91xa 10ng

mo.
mN.
—.N.
or.
o...
a...

No.-

2.
or.
mo.
ON.
2..

suounqpne lewaw! 10ng

mo.-
3.-
3..
MN.
9.-
mo.

SSOOODS

00.
N...
no.
no.

wawfipawouxoe

mo.-
no.-

No.
no.

no...

00.
5.
no.
mo.

3.-

no.
0...

v0.-

9..

no.-

mo
00.

Bumseq

mNN mN.m 8dr
mNN and mod
mNN owd de
mNN vmd vwd
mNN «Nd and
mNN No.0 Nv .v
mNN and 01w
mNN mmd hNd
mNN 009 5d
mNN 34. Sad
mNN 3.0 mad
mNN mad mud
mNN cod no .m
mNN mad mod
VNN mo... CNN
#NN 8.0 mm .v
mNN so. P Nod
mNN nvd mm .o
mNN ovd end
2 Om E

Emafiemc

3:09:50 E3336»
82.633

emfio 53> 22:22
953 .mom

3850.22,.

3.5 0252.

open ozcocSm

52080 25:65
meannefim 99:0
2.3355 totm
225935 358
cages—mama 9:

82.... 9538
303355 EEExo .23
225255 _mE2c_ 8.5
$803
EmEmuosSEom
0:2me

59

._a=owa€ 05 mesa 3:80.. 2a Anna—m $53.8..an moEan—om .025“ .5 _o>o_ we. 2: 8 2855? 9a Ban 5 macaw—ebony
83322 no 3:333— 23 £3355; FEE—Sm 5:32 5:23.995955 6.2.8 o 033.

apnmmfi 1481:

R.

wsgssgoJau

2..

cu.

Kauefiugxuoo waaxsa-uos

«N.
8.
on.

means—yes

2..
mo.
3.
km.

enema uuM suonem

B.
a.
so.
8.

mu.

Bumas '306

mum mad mm .m P
mum and moi
mNN cod mad
mNN find wad
mmw mad and
mum" No.0 N w .v
mNN mmd 0v. w
mNN mad Bud
mNN 8. w 5.0
mNN 3. p 3mm
mNN 5.0 8.6
MNN 8.0 and
mNN 8.0 59m
mNN 8.0 00.0
VNN mo. _. CNN
VNN mod 8.?
mNN no. r mad
mNN EEO mmd
mNN Dvd end
2 Qm 2

E383:

3.59.2.8 8333.8
Emofimémm

£28 5;, 223.2
953 a8
6852.8

8.5 03.53

8.5 2.553

5:080 8335
80:56 29:0
38355 :88
802555 358
8:835 as.

not... 9.58
8025.53 .955 SE
9.033% .mEoE. .63
mg
5.580%
9.239

60

Test of Hypotheses

The scale intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for all
variables included in the hypotheses and as control variables are provided in . To test the
effects of the savoring interventions on outcomes, a series of AN COVAs and planned
contrasts were conducted. Perceived success of university admission and both internal
and external prior causal attributions were statistically controlled in all analyses unless
specifically mentioned otherwise (i.e., in some cases, it made conceptual sense to only
control for one type of casual attribution).

Subjective well-being

The first set of hypotheses concerned the effects of both savoring interventions on
subjective well-being. Hypothesis 1 stated that positive affect (PA) would be higher for
individuals who savored a success compared to individuals in a control group. An
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) confirmed that there were significant differences on
PA between the three conditions, F (2,21 8) = 5.47 , p <.Ol. Contrast results indicated that
both the basking and acknowledgment of others conditions had higher means on adjusted
PA than the control group (p < .01 and p < .05, respectively) thus supporting Hypothesis
1. Participants who savored their success reported higher positive affect than control
participants, regardless of the extent to which the event was considered a success and
their prior internal and external causal atributions. The raw (unadjusted means) are
presented in Figure 5.

Hypothesis 2 stated that life satisfaction would be higher for individuals who
savored a success compared to individuals in a control group. An ANCOVA showed no

significant effects of condition on life satisfaction, F (2,21 8) = .51, p = .60, after

61

perceived success and prior causal attributions were controlled. The raw (unadjusted

means) are presented in Figure 5. Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

 

4.5

 

 

Positive affect

 

 

Control Basking Acknowledgment of
Others
M=2.81 M=3.21 M=3.16
SD=.81 SD=.64 SD=.93

 

 

Life Satisfaction

  

 

 

Control Basking Acknowledgment

of Others
M=3.54 M=3.53 M=3.64
SD=.68 SD=.67 SD=.69

Figure 5. Positive affect and life satisfaction means by condition.
N = 225 (83, 68, and 74, respectively)

62

Causal Attributions

The type of savoring engaged in, either self-focused basking or other-focused
acknowledgment of others, was proposed to be associated with causal attributions of
success. Hypothesis 3 predicted that basking in success would be associated with higher
internal attributions of causality relative to the acknowledgment group. To test this
hypothesis, a MANCOVA of ability and effort attributions controlling for perceived
success and internal causal attributions was performed, which revealed no significant
differences across groups, Wilk’s lambda = .98, F(4,436) = .91, p = .46. The pattern of
raw means suggested that participants who basked in success tended to attribute their
success to ability more so than control participants, which was confirmed in a more
liberal t-test (p < .05). Nevertheless, the results failed to support Hypothesis 3, which
proposed differences in internal attributions between the savoring groups.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that acknowledgment of others would be positively related
to external attributions of causality. An ANCOVA on attribution to others indicated
significant effects of condition controlling for perceived success and prior external
attributions, F (2,219) = 4.18, p < .05. Planned comparisons confirmed that the difference
was due to higher external attributions in the acknowledgment of others condition when
compared to both the control and basking groups (ps < .01). Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Emotions

The next set of hypotheses proposed differential relationships of the two types of
savoring with emotions. Only the attribution type theoretically relevant for the outcome
was controlled when testing Hypotheses 5 and 6. Hypothesis 5 predicted that

acknowledgment of others in response to success would be associated with higher

63

gratitude than would basking in success. An AN COVA on gratitude indicated significant
group differences after controlling for perceived success and prior external attributions,
F(2,219) = 4.32, p < .05. The acknowledgment of others condition did not differ
significantly from the basking condition on gratitude (p = .62). Counter to expectations,
gratitude was higher in both the acknowledgment of others and basking conditions
compared to the control group (p < .01 and p < .05, respectively). Mean levels of
gratitude, unadjusted for the effects of covariates, are shown in Figure 6. These results
indicate that gratitude was related to the savoring manipulations but not difi‘erentially

according to type of savoring. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

 

 

 

 

4.5
4 _-.
3.5 _
2.5
2 __
1.5
Control Basking Acknowledgment of
Others
M=3.54 M=3.91 M=4.02
SD=1.17 SD=1.00 SD=.98

Figure 6. Gratitude means by condition.
N = 225 (83, 68, and 74, respectively)

Hypothesis 5a stated that the effects of acknowledgment of others on gratitude
would be mediated by external causal attributions for success. Mediation is not readily

examined in AN COVA and, therefore, two dummy codes were used to represent the

64

study groups in a regression. The results conformed with the requirements of the first
three steps but not the fourth of the Baron and Kenny (1986) test, i.e., the path from
acknowledgment of others to gratitude remained significant, suggesting only partial
mediation. A formal assessment of indirect effects can be conducted using the Sobel test,
which is considered conservative and more accurate and powerful than the Baron and
Kenny test (MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995). Results indicated that the indirect
effect of acknowledgment of others on gratitude through external attributions was
significant (2 = 2.30, p < .05) and that the direct effect of acknowledgment on gratitude
was not significant after attributions were controlled, t = 1.34, p = .18. This latter finding
provides support for full mediation. Because of the relatively small sample size, it is
preferable to use a bootstrapping method to estimate the indirect effect as recommended
by Preacher and Hayes (2004). Using 5,000 bootstrap samples, results confirmed that the
95% confidence interval of the indirect effect did not include zero (.03, .23). Hypothesis
5a was supported.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that basking in success would be associated with higher
authentic and hubristic pride than would acknowledgment of others in response to
success. Because the observed correlation between authentic and hubristic pride was only
.13, these forms of pride were examined in two separate ANCOVAs. The results
indicated significant group differences on state authentic pride, F (2,219) = 3.72, p < .05,
but not hubristic pride, F (2,220) = .10, p = .91, after controlling for perceived success and
prior internal attributions. Hence, follow-up tests were conducted for authentic pride
only. A planned contrast indicated that authentic pride did not differ between the basking

and acknowledgment of others conditions (p = .28). To explore the data further, post-hoe

65

pairwise comparisons were conducted with bonferroni corrections, which revealed that

that there was no difference between the basking condition and control group (p = .37),

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

4.5
4
8
.c 3.5
o.
O
E 3 """"" 7
E
:t 2.5
<
2
1.5 m"
Basking Acknowledgment
of Others
M=3.07 M=3.32 M=3.47
SD=.84 SD=.85 SD=.90
3
o 2.5
1::
'l:
o.
.9.
*5 2 ~
“E
.D
:s
E
1 5 _.. ._,__. ,._.. , W. , . ,,,..........-_- -W .. .......... , ,.’.__..,__..__.2__.... .._ . . m...—
1 ~--..-_ -2.
Control Basking Acknowledgment
of Others
M=1.44 M=1.47 M=1.47
SD=.56 SD=.51 SD=.53

Figure 7. Authentic and hubristic pride means by condition.
N = 225 (83. 68, and 74, respectively)

66

but that authentic pride was significantly higher in the acknowledgment of others
condition compared to the control group (p < .05). These results failed to support
Hypothesis 6. The raw (unadjusted) means for authentic and hubristic pride are presented
in Figure 7.

Because there was no significant relationship between basking in success and
either form of pride, it was not feasible to test for mediation by internal causal
attributions as predicted in Hypothesis 6a and 6b. Although acknowledgment of others
was unexpectedly related to authentic pride, it was unrelated to ability and effort
attributions, F(2,221) = 1.06, p = .35.

Motivational Constructs

The next two hypotheses concerned effects of savoring success on motivational
constructs. Hypothesis 7 stated that basking in a success would be associated with higher
self-efficacy than would acknowledgment of others in response to a success. An
ANCOVA on self-efficacy indicated that there were no significant group differences,

F (2,21 8) = 1.94, p = .15. These results failed to support Hypothesis 7.

Hypothesis 8 stated that basking in a personal success would be associated with higher
performance goals than would acknowledgment of others. An AN COVA on performance
goals was not significant, F (2,218) = 1.57, p = .21. Thus there was no support for
Hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 8a, proposing a mediation of the relationship between basking
and performance goals, could consequently not be tested. The raw (unadjusted) means for

self-efficacy and performance goals are provided in Figure 8.

67

Self-efficacy

Performance Goal (GPA)

 

 

 

Control Basking Acknowledgment
of Others

M=4.01 M=4.11 M=4.24

SD=.63 SD=.60 SD=.61

 

 

 

 

4.5
4 c.--..‘"_,.
3.5 ~— ~
3
2.5
2 _.
1.5 . , _-
Control Basking Acknowledgment
of Others
M=3.57 M=3.56 M=3.62
SD=.21 SD=.26 SD=.22

Figure 8. Self-efficacy and performance goal means by condition.
N = 225 (83, 68, and 74, respectively)

68

Positive Relations with Others
Hypothesis 9 predicted positive relations with others to be higher in the
acknowledgment of others condition compared to the basking condition. An ANCOVA
indicated that perceived relations with others did not differ as a function of condition,
F(2,218)=.27, p = .77. These results failed to support Hypothesis 9. The unadjusted

means are presented in Figure 9.

 

 

 

 

4.5
E
.53
~5- 4
5
E 3.5 ~-
V)
x:
.2 3
E3
0)
H
,0 2.5 —- ~
0.)
.2.
a) 2 ~ » -
8
5‘:
1.5 —
Control Basking Acknowledgment
of Others
=3.79 M=3.88 M=3.87
SD=.58 SD=.50 SD=.53

Figure 9. Perceived relations with others means by condition.
N = 225 (83, 68, and 74, respectively)

Individual Diference Moderators3
Hypothesis 10 stated that contingency of self-esteem would moderate the effects
of a basking intervention on authentic pride and self-efficacy. A MANCOVA indicated
that the interaction between self-esteem contingency and condition was not significant,

Wilk’s lambda = .99, F(4,428) = .62, p = .65. Hypothesis 10 was not supported.

 

3 The number of individuals across analyses differed by one in some instances because one individual was
missing scores on contingent self-esteem and trait gratitude.

69

Hypothesis 11 stated that level of self-esteem would moderate the effects of a
basking intervention on authentic pride and self-efficacy. A MANCOVA indicated that
the interaction between self-esteem level and study condition was not statistically
significant, Wilk’s lambda = .97, F (4,428) = 1.95, p = .10, but the direct effect of self-
esteem was significant, Wilk’s lambda = .79, F(2,214) = 28.63, p < .001. Because the
correlation between the outcome variables of authentic pride and self-efficacy was
modest (r = .21), univariate statistics were subsequently examined, which revealed that
the interaction between condition and self-esteem was significant for authentic pride,
F(2,215) = 3.85, p < .05, but not for self-efficacy, F(2,215) = .18, p = .84. Follow-up
testing, which controlled for perceived success and prior internal attributions, indicated
that the effect of the acknowledgment intervention on authentic pride (relative to control)
was significantly moderated by self-esteem level (p < .05), whereas the effect of the
basking intervention on authentic pride (relative to control) was only marginally
moderated by self-esteem level (p = .07). Thus, Hypothesis 11 was not supported.
Moderation occurred but was not significant for the expected group. The observed
benefits of the acknowledging others intervention for authentic pride were qualified by
self-esteem levels, with higher authentic pride reported for individuals in the
acknowledgment group with higher self-esteem. In Figure 10 the interaction is plotted
with respect to residualized authentic pride, the dependent variable with the effects of the
covariates partialled out.

Hypothesis 12 predicted a three-way interaction between self—esteem level, self-

esteem contingency, and condition with respect to authentic pride and self-efficacy. A

70

0.7 ->

 

0.6

0.5 ' /
0.4 < ~-—
/ I -
0.3 I
/ I -A - Control
0 2 1

° / I v -" Bask
0.1 ’ —o—Ack

 

 

Authentic Pride (Residuals)

 

 

 

 

. /’ I ’ . ’ , 4
-o.2 (I '1’ . ’— . r ’
43.3 I? '
—o.4
Low Medium High
Self-esteem

Figure 10. Authentic pride as a function of condition and level of self-esteem.

Control=control group, Bask=Basking group, Ack=Acknowledgment of Others group. Residuals are from
the regression of authentic pride on the covariates, i.e., on perceived success of university admission and on
task enjoyment. The low, medium, and high values of self-esteem represent one standard deviation below
the mean, at the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean.

MANCOVA produced nonsignificant results, Wilk’s lambda = 1.0, F (4,41 6) = .18, p =
.95. Because of the modest correlation between authentic pride and self-efficacy
univariate results were examined, but neither were significant. Hypothesis 12 was not
supported.

Hypothesis 13 predicted that the effects of an acknowledgment of others
intervention on gratitude and perceived positive relations with others would depend on an
individual’s level of narcissism. A MANCOVA, controlling for perceived success and
prior external attributions, indicated that narcissism had a significant main effect, Wilk’s
lambda = .97, F (2,215) = 3.46, p < .05, but its interaction with condition was not

significant, Wilk’s lambda = .98, F (4,430) = 1.25, p = .29. Follow-up tests indicated that

71

the main effect was due to narcissism positively predicting perceived relations with
others. These results failed to support Hypothesis l3.

Hypothesis 14 stated that the relationships between a basking intervention and the
outcomes of hubristic pride and self-efficacy would be stronger for individuals higher in
narcissism. Because the two outcomes were unrelated (r = -.01), separate ANCOVAs
were conducted. The interaction between condition and narcissism was not significant for
self-efficacy, F (2,216) = .72, p = .49, although narcissism did have a direct positive effect
on self-efficacy. The interaction between condition and narcissism was significant for
hubristic pride, F (2,216) = 3.22, p < .05. Whereas higher narcissism was expected to
amplify the relationship between basking and hubristic pride, it instead was associated
with higher hubristic pride in the acknowledgment of others group (see Figure 11 where

the interaction is plotted with respect to residualized hubristic pride). Hypothesis 14 was

 

0.4

0.3

0.2 /
0.1 / —I— bask

 

 

 

 

Hubristic Pride (Residuals)

 

 

 

 

d - control
0 —o—ack
-0.1
—0.2
-0.3
Low Medium High
Narcissism

Figure l 1. Hubristic pride as a function of condition and level of narcissism.

Control=control group, Bask=Basking group, Ack=Acknowledgment of Others group. Residuals are
from the regression of hubristic pride on the covariates, i.e., on perceived success of university admission
and on task enjoyment. The low, medium, and high values of narcissism correspond to one standard
deviation below the mean, at the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean.

72

not supported.

Hypotheses 15 and 16 predicted trait gratitude would moderate the relationship
between the acknowledgment of others intervention and the outcomes of gratitude and
perceived positive relations with others. Specifically, competing hypotheses were made
about the direction of the moderating effect. Trait gratitude did have a strong direct
relationship with these outcomes, Wilk’s lambda = .67, F(2,215) = 53.32, p < .001. The
interaction between trait gratitude and condition was not significant after controlling for
perceived success and prior external attributions, Wilk’s lambda = .98, F (4,430)= .99, p =
.41. Thus neither Hypothesis 15 nor 16 were supported. These results indicate that
individuals high in trait gratitude did not respond any differently to the savoring
intervention than did individuals low in trait gratitude.

Supplementary Analysis: The Role of Time

Organizational researchers have called for a more thorough consideration of time
in theory building (George & Jones, 2000). An exploratory analysis was conducted to
investigate the role of time in savoring processes. The time lag between the occurrence of
participants’ success (i.e., the date they were notified of university acceptance) and the
date of savoring was examined as a potential moderator of the effects of savoring. One
could imagine that savoring might have its most impact shortly after an event when it
retains some of its novelty and one is still processing all of its positive implications. On
the other hand, the effect of a new event might overpower any incremental benefits from
savoring, in which case independent effects of savoring might best be felt after the rush
of initial excitement has worn off. Contrary to both of these exploratory hypotheses, the

analysis did not reveal any significant interactions between time lag and savoring.

73

DISCUSSION

The first aim in the present study was to test the effects of intrapersonal savoring
on positive affect. While past researchers have found “thankfulness” interventions to be
successful in this regard, the present study demonstrated that individuals can reap similar
affective benefits from self-focused basking. Although theory suggests that several forms
of savoring positive events result in positive affect (Bryant & Veroff, 2007), this
proposition had yet to be empirically tested. The present study was unique in its
experimental design in several respects and, as such, was able to provide firm evidence of
this relationship. First, by manipulating savoring rather than relying on self-report, one
can rule out common method variance due to raters or items as an alternative explanation
for the results. Second, random assignment to conditions lends confidence that
differences between conditions were due to the savoring manipulation. Finally,
admissions data on applicants was obtained from the university and individuals were
contacted because they had all experienced the same positive event of being accepted to
the university. Identifying a population that had experienced a common positive event
made it possible to control a priori (not statistically) for the effects of the event itself on
affective well-being (i.e., even participants in the control condition had been admitted to
the university). This feature of the design also removes some of the contamination that is
inherent in asking people to both nominate what they consider to be positive events and
to report the absence or occurrence of savoring that event.

In contrast to its association with positive affect, savoring was not related to life
satisfaction. This is perhaps not surprising considering life satisfaction is more stable and

less malleable than affect. Nevertheless, this finding is at odds with Gable et al. (2004)

74

who found interpersonal savoring was positively related to life satisfaction. At least two
important differences may account for the disparity in findings. It may be that the effects
of sharing events with others do not generalize to savoring in which individuals engage
by themselves. Sharing news may have stronger effects than savoring good news
internally. Another difference is methodological. Researchers have varied in their
operationalizations of life satisfaction. The measure used in the present study asked
participants how they felt at the moment, but with respect to their overall life, not their
life that day. The items of Gable et a1. (2004) allowed participants to reflect on “life
today.” This difference speaks to the notion of capturing an aspect of subjective well-
being that is likely to be susceptible to daily fluctuations in experience.

A second aim of the study was to specify a context for savoring. Thus, an
additional variation in the design of the present study from past savoring research is in
the scope of positive events considered. The majority of studies investigating reactions to
positive events have not differentiated between or specified what types of positive events
were experienced by participants (e. g., Bryant et a., 2005; Gable et al., 2004; Langston,
1994; Lyubomirsky et al., 2006; Seligman et al., 2005). This study confined positive
events to personal achievements and was designed to examine the forms of savoring that
previous research (Bryant & Veroff, 2007) suggested were relevant to this domain of
events.

The third aim of the study was to expand the nomological network of
psychological constructs in which savoring achievements is embedded. By focusing on
specific types of positive events, one can be more precise in theorizing proposed effects

of savoring these events. Savoring achievement events was proposed to influence not

75

only general positive subjective states, but also positive feelings and thoughts focused
specifically on the self, because achievement is a self-relevant event. The results suggest
that savoring personal successes may lead to enhanced feelings about oneself in the form
of pride, but may not affect motivational states (e.g., self-efficacy or goal setting) or
perceptions of relationships with others. Thus, one conclusion that could be made is that
the primary implications of savoring are for hedonic well-being, and that the outcomes
affected by savoring success may not be as broad as hypothesized in the present study.
Can F arms of Savoring be Distinguished?

As mentioned previously, all forms of savoring should have some conceptual
overlap. Bryant and Veroff (2007) contend that the common feature is a meta-awareness
of pleasure. Accordingly, all participants in the present study were instructed to reflect on
the emotions they were experiencing with regard to their success. At the same time, one
would hope to find meaningfiil differences between savoring styles. In the present study,
one group focused inward on their own positive qualities and actions, whereas the other
group focused outward on the people who helped them achieve success. A pertinent
question is whether these two forms of savoring—basking and acknowledgment of
others—were empirically distinguishable from one another. One method of showing
discriminant validity is through content analysis. The content of participants’ savoring
experiences, as indicated by their writing during the experiment, highly resembled the
current study’s predefined notions of what basking and acknowledgment of others entail.
These results constitute the most straightforward evidence of distinctiveness.

A more sophisticated means of demonstrating discriminant validity would entail

observing divergent relationships between the two forms of savoring and other variables.

76

Based on attributional theory of emotion (Weiner, 1985), a number of such differential
hypotheses were formed. The results were not as supportive in this regard. The basking
and acknowledgment of others groups did not differ from one another in amount of pride
(hubristic or authentic) or in the extent to which they attributed their success to internal
factors. In fact, only the acknowledgment of others group differed significantly from the
control group on authentic pride, an unexpected finding. The two savoring groups did not
differ in gratitude even though the acknowledgment of others group exhibited higher
external attributions for their success. In sum, these results provide only modest evidence
for distinctiveness in the savoring processes of basking and acknowledgment of others.
The subjective experiences of the individuals asked to engage in each type of savoring
were more similar than was expected.
Shortfalls of A ttribution Theory in Predicting Positive Emotions

According to attribution theory and Bryant and Veroffs (2007) conceptualization
of savoring forms, basking should not have been associated with gratitude, and
acknowledgment of others should not have been associated with authentic pride. Why did
participants who were asked to reflect on their own doings report feelings of gratitude
(e. g., thankful, appreciative)? Similarly, why did participants who were asked to write
about the support and help received from others subsequently report higher feelings of
authentic pride (e.g., successful, confident, accomplished)? The framework of attribution
theory explicated by Weiner (1985), which provided the basis for the majority of
hypotheses, offers little in the way of explaining these results.

A parsimonious explanation for these findings is that savoring, in any form,

induces a positive affective halo effect. The general positive affect evident amongst

77

participants in both savoring groups may have influenced experiences of specific
emotions or reports thereof. In support of this notion, positive affect was moderately
related to both pride and gratitude. Additionally, exploratory analyses conducted to
explore this possibility revealed that the effects of both types of savoring on gratitude
were fully mediated by positive affect. Likewise, the effect of acknowledging others on
authentic pride was mediated by positive affect. Research has shown that positive
emotional states (more so than negative states) tend to blend together in individuals’
experience of them (Fredrickson, 1998). Perhaps then it is not surprising that different
types of savoring did not produce a differentiated pattern of results for gratitude versus
pride.

The above explanation would account for the fact that (a) participants who basked
were more likely than control participants to experience gratitude even though they were
no more likely to make external causal attributions for their success and that (b) the
effects of acknowledgment on authentic pride were not mediated by internal attributions.
An implication of this study’s findings is that individuals can arrive at the same emotions
despite dissimilar attributions. These results are consistent with Emmons and
MCullough’s (2003) results, which showed that a gratitude intervention increased general
positive affect along with gratitude. This is concordant with research that shows positive
emotions are preceded by less differentiated patterns of appraisal than are negative
emotions (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). Attributional theory may provide a better account
of negative than positive emotion generation. In an evolutionary sense, understanding and
reacting to a negative situation is more consequential than accurately appraising and

responding to a positive situation (Fredrickson, 1998). In fact, one may benefit fi'om the

78

spreading of positive emotions and a diffuse “feel good” state. One important caveat to
the above explanation is that individuals in both of the savoring conditions reflected upon
personal successes. An interesting research question is whether a positive mood induction
would stimulate pride and gratitude in the absence of a situation in which personal
success is made salient.
Basking and Pride

Although there was a trend toward higher authentic pride in the basking condition
compared to the control group, the difference was not significant. Exploratory analyses
conducted to investigate this curious finding suggested that certain standards of
personally defined success had to be met for basking to result in feelings of authentic
pride. Although the continuous measure of perceived success of admission did not
moderate effects of basking in the full sample, a reduced dataset consisting only of those
individuals who viewed their university admission as reflective of a high degree of
personal success revealed significant effects of basking on authentic pride, t(1,153) =
2.54, p < .05. Thus, basking appears to only influence pride when the event is perceived
as highly successful. In contrast, the effect of acknowledging others on authentic pride
was observed in the full sample of participants with a full range of success perceptions.
One possible account of these results is that authentic pride is a default response to any
form of savoring achievements (i.e., via the mechanisms described in the preceding
section), but self-focused savoring in particular runs the risk of dampening this prideful
response for those individuals who see flaws in their achievements. Basking through a

writing task may have amplified this effect. Lyubomirsky, Sousa, and Dickerhoof (2008)

79

proposed that the activity of self-analysis through writing prompts an over-analytic style
of thinking that interferes with the benefits of reflecting on success.
How Does Savoring Work?

One intended contribution of the present study was to gain a better understanding
of how specific thought processes in reaction to positive events (e. g., acknowledgment of
others, basking) influence well-being. Because hypotheses regarding positive rumination
and attributions for success were not supported, these results call into question the
cognitive mechanism by which savoring affects well-being. On a more serious note, these
results cannot necessarily rule out the interpretation that any form of meaningful positive
thinking increases positive affect. In fact, the effect of savoring on positive affect and
emotions was no longer statistically significant after controlling for the meaningfulness
of task participation.

The fact that task meaningfulness appeared to be driving the results in the present
study prompts a closer scrutiny of past savoring research. Interventions typically employ
control groups that engage in relatively meaningless tasks, such as the ones used in the
present study. For example, Watkins et al. (2003 ), in their fourth study, compared
participants in a gratitude condition with participants in a control group who described
the layout of their living room. Similarly, Burton and King (2004) compared participants
who wrote about intensely positive experiences to control participants who wrote about
their plans for the day, the shoes they were wearing, or a description of their bedroom.
Such comparison groups preclude researchers from making strong statements about how
savoring specifically is different from meaningful, positive experiences more generally,

at least in terms of their effects. At present, there is limited knowledge of how savoring

80

per se works. The utility of the savoring construct can be greatly enhanced to the extent
that future research can demonstrate that it is associated with unique benefits (i.e., beyond
those expected from having meaningful, positive thoughts).

Does Savoring A fleet Lasting Outcomes?

The prescriptive utility of research on savoring would also be augmented to the
extent that the effects of savoring are long-lasting. Thus, the longevity of the effects of
savoring was examined in an exploratory manner. The majority of participants returned
for a third day only to complete the outcome measures again. Self-reports of positive
affect, gratitude, authentic and hubristic pride, life satisfaction, goal setting, self-efficacy,
and positive relations with others were collected from 220 participants. Examining these
delayed outcomes revealed that the effects of savoring success were short-lived. The
relationship with positive affect observed on day two of the intervention had disappeared
by day three. Because the effects of savoring were solely affective and immediate, one
might question whether the process of savoring can be relegated to simple mood
induction. Similar concerns have been voiced previously with regards to the expressive
writing paradigm by emphasizing a distinction between changes in mood and changes in
psychological health (Marlo & Wagner, 1999). This possibility, while it cannot be refuted
by the present study, is not as condemning for the construct of saVoring as it seems.

Whereas the fleeting effects of savoring in an experimental context resemble what
is typically referred to as positive mood induction, its fleeting effects in a naturally
occurring context fall under the research rubric of positive affect regulation. Savoring
positive events is likely to be one method by which people regulate momentary positive

affect (Wood et al., 2003). The functional benefits of savoring are highlighted from

81

this perspective. Although any one instance of restoring or maintaining positive affect
does not affect long-term personal outcomes, a person’s patterns (and consistency) of
affect regulation over time impact their psychological health (Larson, 2000). Although
research on positive affect regulation to date is sparse, there is evidence that individuals
differ characteristically from one another in their desire and tendency to maintain positive
affective states (Hemenover, 2003; Wood et al., 2003). The extent to which an individual
regularly engages in savoring should have more long-lasting consequences than any
given incidence of savoring. For example, instead of an employee growing accustomed to
his promotion, he could occasionally and repeatedly reflect on his good fortune.
Consistent with this idea, Bryant and Veroff (2007) found that perceived capability to
savor is related to reports of overall happiness. Additionally, in the present study self-
reported savoring of university admission (enacted prior to the study) correlated
significantly with a wider range of outcomes—life satisfaction, performance goals, and
perceived relations with others, [F(3,220) = 11.04, p < .001]—than did the two-day
experimental manipulation of savoring.

The above conceptual argument in combination with the results of the present
study suggest that the majority of previous savoring research, in which savoring is
manipulated on only a few occasions, is most useful in improving understanding of
momentary positive affect regulation. A few notable exceptions exist in which
interventions have lasted a significant period of time (Emmons & McCullough, 2003;
Seligman et al., 2005). These studies have produced promising results including life
satisfaction increases and longer lasting changes in affect. If one wishes to demonstrate

lasting effects of savoring, then an investigation of repeated savoring over a prolonged

82

time period may be more appropriate. There is a trend toward recognizing happiness as a
skill that can be learned with practice (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Seligman et al., 2005).
Viewing savoring as a skill that can be learned may be a fruitfiil perspective. Treatment
of depression was informed by studying why depressed people were depressed, which
has been largely attributed to cognitive processes (e.g., rumination, negative bias). How
to enhance positive aspects of well-being can be similarly informed by studying opposite
but parallel cognitive processes, such as savoring.
Do Individual Diflerences A flect the Savoring Process?

If people do vary from one another in the extent to which they benefit from
savoring, it would be USCfiJl to understand whether stable individual differences predict
this variation. The moderating effects hypothesized were not supported in this study.
Contrary to expectations, self-esteem did not significantly moderate basking effects.
Likewise, narcissists did not appear to be better baskers (experience greater authentic
pride) or worse at acknowledging others (experience less gratitude). In spite of these null
findings, self-esteem and narcissism did yield several intriguing albeit unanticipated
moderating effects, which are elaborated upon below.

Dispositional Predictors of A uthent’ic and Hubristic Pride

Recall that Tracy and Robins (2007a) described authentic and hubristic as two
distinct facets of pride. These authors found that self-esteem correlated mostly with
authentic pride, whereas narcissism was more closely related to hubristic pride. The
present study went one step further and hypothesized trait moderation of prideful
responses to events. Self-esteem was expected to moderate the effects of basking on

authentic pride, whereas narcissism was expected to moderate the effects of basking on

83

hubristic pride. The results did not support this prediction (basking was not significantly
related to either form of pride). Unexpectedly, the effects of acknowledging others in
response to success did follow this pattern. Self-esteem (and not narcissism) moderated
the effects of acknowledging others on authentic pride, whereas narcissism (and not self-
esteem) moderated effects of acknowledging others on hubristic pride.

The observed association between acknowledging others for one’s success and
higher authentic pride was stronger for individuals higher in self-esteem. Additional
exploratory analyses revealed that the association between acknowledging others and
positive affect was also stronger for these individuals (see Figure 12). There was a trend
toward self-esteem moderating the effects of basking on these two outcomes, as well, as

evident in Figures 10 and 12 but neither reached significance. These results seem to

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.4
E 0.3 I
g I
I
E 0.2 i
5 o 1 I ’
:6: ° , ’ -A - Control
I
g 0 f / -I- Bask
o
+ k
g -o.1 AC
'5
0 K
On ‘03. ' fi .
\
A ‘ .
43.3 \4 a
-0.4
Low Medium High
Self-esteem

Figure 12. Positive affect as a function of condition and level of self-esteem.

Control=control group, Bask=Basking group, Ack=Acknowledgment of Others group. Residuals are from
the regression of positive affect on the covariates, i.e., on perceived success of university admission and on
task enjoyment. The low, medium, and high values of self-esteem represent one standard deviation below
the mean, at the mean, and 1 standard deviation above the mean. The simple slope in the control condition
is nonsignificant.

84

suggest that self-esteem affects the ability to savor. Individuals high in self-esteem
appeared to benefit more from savoring than their low self-esteem counterparts.
However, because the moderation of basking was not significant and the moderation of
acknowledgment of others was unexpected, these findings should be regarded tentatively
until they can be replicated. The fact that this moderation occurred for the
acknowledgment of others condition was particularly surprising, especially considering
the presumed mechanism for self-esteem effects was though self-enhancement. How
could acknowledging others promote self-enhancement? If these results were not due to
chance, one explanation could be provided by the sociometer theory of self-esteem
(Leary, 2006). According to this theory, self-esteem is less a reflection of one’s esteem
for oneself and more an assessment of one’s relational value in others’ eyes. Thus
individuals high in self-esteem would be more apt to interpret contributions from others
as a sign of social acceptance and to view themselves as deserving of these contributions.
Reflecting on others’ support would kindle feelings of authentic pride, which is theorized
to be a direct function of self-perceived social value (Tracy & Robins, 2007b).

The second intriguing finding was that narcissism interacted with the
acknowledgment of others condition to predict hubristic pride4. For individuals high in
narcissism, acknowledging others was associated with relatively high hubristic pride.
Narcissists experience a tension between hidden negative self-representations and an
explicit grandiose sense of self. As a result, they are highly sensitive to ego threat
(Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). If acknowledging the role of others in their success

instigated feelings of inadequacy, narcissists may have spun the situation in their own

 

4 Exploratory analyses confirmed that narcissism only moderated the effects of acknowledgment of others
on hubristic pride, and no other outcomes.

85

favor and compensated with exaggerated feelings of their own greatness (e.g., “Of course
my teachers wrote me great letters of recommendation, because I am awesome”).
Dispositional Predictors of Gratitude

Whereas the effect of acknowledging others on pride was qualified by personality,
its effect on gratitude was fairly straightforward. Neither trait gratitude nor narcissism
were significant moderators. This study suggests that these particular traits do not affect
whether a person has the capacity to be grateful for their successes. This finding is
promising for “gratitude interventions” that use a blanket approach to instilling gratitude
across participants (e.g., Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, &
Schkade, 2005). Although there may be other relevant individual differences to consider,
these results offer initial support for the robustness of gratitude manipulations.

Contrary to the beliefs of some clinical observers (e.g., McWilliams & Lependorf,
1990), these results suggest that narcissists are not any less capable of experiencing
gratitude. When asked to acknowledge others, narcissists were able to recognize external
help and feel grateful. However, one possible account for the data suggests that they
counteracted the humbling effects of gratefulness by reasserting their specialness and
superiority (i.e., they also reported higher hubristic pride in the acknowledgment of
others condition). Perhaps if left to their own devices, narcissists may not be naturally
inclined to experience gratitude. Future researchers might investigate whether high levels
of narcissism discourage the self-initiation of grateful thoughts, feelings, or expressions.

Because the gratitude manipulations benefitted individuals equally, regardless of
trait gratitude level, neither the conductance nor resistance hypothesis was supported.

Trait gratitude does not appear to reflect a superior ability to experience gratitude.

86

Although the resistance hypothesis was not supported in this study, it is possible that
certain design features—specifically, the provision of a gratitude-relevant event to be
savored—provided an unfair test. Trait gratitude may reflect an individuals’ propensity to
naturally (i.e., not through experimental manipulation) see the world from a grateful lens,
which would produce results that are consistent with the resistance hypothesis that was
supported by McCullough et al. (2004). Individuals high in trait gratitude may be able to
construe what many would consider neutral circumstances into something for which to be
grateful. However, when an event with obvious gratitude-relevance (e. g., college
admission) is presented to individuals and a request is made to reflect upon it, individuals
high and low in trait gratitude might experience similar levels of state gratitude. The
present data cannot speak to this possibility but they do not refute it either. In contrast,
the results appear to contradict the conductance hypothesis, which predicts that
individuals high in trait gratitude react more intensely when asked to reflect on the same
positive event as their low trait gratitude counterparts.
Limitations

There are several features of the present study that may limit the generalizability
of its results. First, savoring was prompted using guided questions (e.g., In what ways are
you fortunate for your success?) This characteristic of the study design was necessary to
achieve some level of uniformity of treatment across participants and to ensure that they
were engaging in savoring as defined in this study. If the directions had been vague, the
causal process by which results were attained would have been ambiguous. Whether the
effects of savoring on short-term positive affect hold under less structured circumstances

cannot be confidently said from these results. However, previous research (e.g., Bryant,

87

Smart, & King, 2005) suggests that more free-flowing exercises can also be effective for
enhancing positive affect.

Second, savoring was operationalized through the task of writing, as opposed to
thinking or talking out loud. It is possible that results could differ if people were to savor
via different modes (Lyubomirsky, Sousa, & Dickerhoof, 2006). There is little surface
similarity between the writing task completed in this study and the way that adults
probably savor. For example, employees are unlikely to keep a journal at work about
their personal successes, but they may savor them thoughtfully while sipping their coffee
and gazing out their office window. The latent components that bring out the effect,
however, which are positive thoughts about the self and others, should be similar.
Furthermore, whereas savoring through writing may not be descriptively valid, the results
are prescriptive in the sense that savoring interventions can be conducted through writing.

A third manner in which the nature of this study might differ from other potential
savoring contexts is the sample. The high school students who were accepted to a four-
year university constituted a convenience sample. As such, all the limitations of using
college students apply, as they are part of a select group that desires and is able to attend
college. As social science researchers, we can only hope that the psychological processes
we study are basic enough to be universal. Reactions to positive events that reflect the
attainment of personal goals are likely to have universal components including the
experience of positive affect (Ekman, 1992). However, cultures may differ in the
experiences that individuals define as personal success and in the appropriate responses
to success. Future research could investigate whether there are cultural differences in

savoring strategies. Savoring success is likely to be affected by cultural norms for giving

88

credit to the self versus others and by differences in need for positive self-regard (Heine,
Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999).

Fourth, although the experimental nature of the study strengthened the ability to
confidently interpret the results, it may also limit the generalizability of results. Most
importantly, participants did not self-define their success nor did they self-initiate
savoring. It is unknown to what extent these aspects of savoring are critical to observing
effects. One might argue that savoring would be more powerful when initiated
spontaneously in response to a personally meaningful event. Recall that participants’ self-
reported pre-study savoring was correlated with a wide range of outcomes. In addition to
reflecting dispositional tendencies to savor, this finding could mean that self-initiated
savoring has more far-reaching consequences than does instructed savoring, but common
method variance and unmeasured third variables could also explain the results. It would
be worthwhile in future research to explore innovative research designs that explore
savoring as a natural occurrence yet control for such confounds.

Lastly, a number of unhypothesized effects were observed. Tentative explanations
were offered but these were only conjectures that require refinement and empirical
testing. Many of the unexpected findings concerned the association between interpersonal
constructs and intrapersonal constructs (e.g., acknowledgment of others, self-esteem, and
pride). The clean distinction between the effects of self- versus other-focused savoring
was not found; the self and others appear to be inherently intertwined. These results
validate the movement toward integrating research on self and others, which has
historically been bifurcated (Finkel & Vohs, 2006), in order to better explicate their

interrelationship.

89

Practical Implications and Future Research

The finding that savoring personal successes is associated with enhanced positive
affect has several implications for achievement contexts. Positive affect is related to a
variety of desirable performance behaviors, including spontaneity and creativity. If these
behaviors are important to an organization, then fostering savoring would be one way to
increase the positive affect of students, or even employees. Some interventions have
already been designed and tested with students, such as the “three good things”
intervention, which drew participants’ attention to daily events that went well and
increased positive affect (Seligman et al., 2005). Savoring interventions can be designed
for workplaces with the dual purpose of improving employee well-being and encouraging
creative work behavior. The present study along with Seligman et al.’s research suggest
that brief writing sessions can be an effective means of intervention. The few studies that
have applied the expressive writing paradigm to the workplace thus far have focused on
reducing stressors (e.g., Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009), whereas the present results suggest
expressive writing about achievements could have benefits in the workplace.
Furthermore, the results of this study provide guidance on types of savoring that are
effective. Specifically, the results suggest that in the wake of success, whether individuals
focus their savoring on inward or outward concerns makes little difference in terms of
affective outcomes. Strong correlations between the two focuses (Bryant & Veroff, 2007)
along with the present results suggest that individuals probably engage in both with
respect to the same event.

Savoring accomplishments can be considered a form of daydreaming. Researchers

have found that as individuals begin to daydream, they spend a significant portion of that

90

time not only imagining possibilities but also reviewing past experiences. Recent findings
suggest that daydreaming can have positive consequences. Specifically, people who let
their minds wander and are aware of it perform better on tests of creativity. At the same
time, daydreaming of which a person is not aware or excessive daydreaming can be
counterproductive in that detracts attention away from on task-behavior (Smallwood et
al., 2009). While this study investigated the benefits of savoring, future research might
consider whether individuals are aware of their savoring experiences and the impact their
awareness has on the effects of savoring.
Conclusion

Only recently have social scientists begun to investigate the implications of
individuals’ responses to positive events. This study made an incremental contribution by
focusing on one type of positive event—personal successes—and one type of response—
intrapersonal savoring. The results confirm that intrapersonal savoring of a positive event
is associated with higher positive affect independent of the effects of the event itself. A
quasi-experiment in which savoring was manipulated lends confidence to the substantive
nature of this relationship. Students who savored their acceptance to a university
experienced higher positive affect and gratitude, and under certain circumstances pride,
than control participants who had also been accepted to the same university. Counter to
expectations, the effects of savoring as operationalized in this study did not extend to
more stable components of subjective well-being (life satisfaction), to motivational
constructs (self-efficacy, performance goals), or to perceived relations with others.

An important consideration for future research on savoring is the study design,

which determines the question being addressed. Manipulating savoring speaks to whether

91

savoring can affect certain outcomes under specified conditions (although the failure to
find an effect does not mean it cannot affect these outcomes under some other
conditions). Observing self-initiated savoring is a reflection of whether savoring does
affect outcomes under some natural (and probably more ambiguous) conditions. Both are
important questions. This study, in combination with previous research, suggests that

savoring can and does enhance positive mood.

92

APPENDIX A

PA NAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)

This scale below consists of a number of words and phrases that describe different feelings
and emotions. Read EACH item and then rate to what extent you feel this way RIGHT
NOW (that is, at the present moment), using the scale provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

very slilghtly or a lizttle modeiately quit: a bit extresmely
notata“
__ Attentive __ Excited — Distressed --—— lnitable
______ Determined __ Guilty _ Afraid __ Enthusiastic
Nervous __ Upset __ Alert __ Inspired
__ Jittery ______ Proud __ Interested __ Ashamed
__ Strong _ Active __ Scared __ Hostile

Hubristic and Authentic Pride (Tracy & Robins, 2007a)
*Uses same response scale as the PANAS

__ Snobbish __ Pompous __ Stuck-up __ Conceited

Egotistical __ Arrogant __ Smug __ Accomplished
__ Successful __ Achieving __ Fulfilled __ Self-worth
__ Confident _ Productive

Gratitude emotion (McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004)

Grateful Thankful Appreciative

93

 

APPENDIX B

Satisfaction of Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the next five statements about
your life, using the scale provided. Please respond according to how you have feel RIGHT

NOW (that is, at the present moment).

Strongly
disagree

1. I feel that in most ways my life has been close to l
ideal.

2. I feel as though the conditions of my life are 1
exceflent

3. I feel satisfied with my life. 1

4. I feel as though I have gotten the important 1
things I want in life.

5. I feel that if I could live my life over, I would 1

change almost nothing.

94

Strongly
Agree

5

APPENDIX C
Academic self-eflicacy (adapted from Wood & Locke, 1987)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the next five statements about
your life, using the scale provided. Please respond according to how you have feel RIGHT
NOW (that is, at the present moment).

Strongly Strongly
disagree Agree
1. I am confident in my ability to succeed as a 1 2 3 4 5
college student.
2. I believe that I can achieve good grades in 1 2 3 4 5
college.
3. I worry that I won’t be successful in college. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I have the ability to excel in school. 1 2 3 4 5

Performance goals (Wood & Locke, 1987)

Please use the following scale of Grade Point Average (GPA) to answer the
questions below.

A (4.0)
A- (3.7)
B+ (3.3)
B (3.0)
B - (2.7)
C+ (2.3)
C (2.0)
C- (1.7)

6. What GPA do you hope to make during your first semester in college?

7. What is the minimum GPA that you would be satisfied with your first semester in
college?

8. What GPA do you expect to get your first semester in college?

9. What GPA would you actually try for in your first semester in college?

95

APPENDIX D

Positive relations with others (Ryff, 1989) .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

each other’s problems.

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
disagree Agree
1. Most people see me as loving and l 5
‘ affectionate.

2. Maintaining close relationships has been 1 5
difficult and frustrating for me

3. I ofien feel lonely because I have few close 1 5
people with whom to share my concerns.

4. I enjoy personal and mutual conversations l 5
with people in my life.

5. It is important to me to be a good listener l 5
when people in my life talk to me about their
problems.

6. I don't have many people who want to listen I 5
when I need to talk.

7. I feel like I get a lot out of my interpersona l 5
relationships. ‘

8. It seems to me that most other people have 1 5
more interpersonal relationships than I do.

9. People would describe me as a giving 1 5
person, willing to share my time with others.

10. I have not experienced many warm and l 5
trusting relationships with others.

11. I ofien feel like I'm on the outside looking in 1 5
when it comes to interpersonal relationships.

12. I know that I can trust the people in my life, 1 5
and they know they can trust me.

13. I find it difficult to really open up when I l 5
talk with others.

14. My friends/family and I sympathize with l 5

 

96

 

APPENDIX E

Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale (adapted from Lefcourt, Baeyer,
Ware, & Cox, 1979)

During or following the writing exercises, how much did you think/write about the
following things related to your acceptance to Michigan State University?

To a
great
Not at all extent

(Ability)

l. The most important ingredient in getting 1 2 3 4 5
accepted into MSU was my academic ability.

2. Being accepted into MSU reflects directly on 1 2 3 4 5
my academic ability.

3. I was accepted into MSU because of my 1 2 3 4 5
academic competence.

(Effort)

4. Being accepted into MSU was the direct 1 2 3 4 5
result of my efforts.

5. I was accepted into MSU because I worked 1 2 3 4 5
hard.

6. I overcame potential obstacles to being 1 2 3 4 5
accepted to MSU by working hard.

(Others’ contributions)

7. I was accepted into MSU because others 1 2 3 4 5
helped me along the way.

8. I was accepted into MSU because my parents 1 2 3 4 5
and teachers made it possible.

9. I was accepted into MSU because I had 1 2 3 4 5

support from people in my life.

97

APPENDIX F

Basking instructions

Day 1
What you are to write about during this study are your thoughts regarding your

acceptance at Michigan State University. When writing, consider the questions that follow these
instructions. This exercise is designed to help you understand how your personal
qualities and actions led to this particular success. Please try to think of the things
you did right.

We ask that you do not share the details of this study with other students. Remember that
your responses will remain confidential. You will be fully debriefed at the conclusion of
the study.

Do not concern yourself with spelling, grammar, or composition. These are not
important. The only rule we have about your writing is that you write continuously for at
least 10 minutes about your acceptance at MSU. It is okay to repeat ideas if you run out
of things to write. A button to proceed to the next page will appear when 10 minutes has
passed, but you can continue writing past that time if you wish.

What were the good things you did to result in your admission to MSU?
What strengths of yours did your admission to MSU highlight?
In what ways did you deserve your admission to MS U?

Day 2
Today’s exercise is similar to the one you completed yesterday. We are asking you to

write more of your thoughts regarding your acceptance at Michigan State University.
When writing, consider the questions that follow these instructions. This exercise is designed to
help you understand how your personal qualities and actions led to this particular
success. Please try to think of the things you did right.

We ask that you do not share the details of this study with other students. Remember that
your responses will remain confidential. You will be fully debriefed at the conclusion of
the study.

Do not concern yourself with spelling, grammar, or composition. These are not
important. The only rule we have about your writing is that you write continuously for at
least 10 minutes about your acceptance at MSU. It is okay to repeat ideas if you run out
of things to write. A button to proceed to the next page will appear when 10 minutes has
passed, but you can continue writing past that time if you wish.

How was your admission to MS U a success and in what ways was it an
impressive achievement?

What obstacles were there that you overcame?

What kinds of positive emotions do you feel as a result being admitted to MS U?

98

Acknowledgement of others instructions

Day 1

What you are to write about during this study are your thoughts regarding your
acceptance at Michigan State University (MSU). When writing, consider the questions that
follow these instructions. This exercise is designed to help you reflect on how others (e.g.,
teachers, parents, mentors, friends) have helped you along the way to this particular
success. Please try to think of how other people made a difference.

We ask that you do not share the details of this study with other students. Remember that

your responses will remain confidential. You will be fully debriefed at the conclusion of
the study.

Do not concern yourself with spelling, grammar, or composition. These are not
important. The only rule we have about your writing is that you write continuously for at
least 10 minutes about your acceptance at MSU. It is okay to repeat ideas if you run out
of things to write. A button to proceed to the next page will appear when 10 minutes has
passed, but you can continue writing past that time if you wish.

Who are the people that helped you on the way toward achieving admission to
MS U?

What things would not have been possible if it were not for their support?

In what ways are you fortunate for your admission to MS U?

Day 2

Today’s exercise is similar to the one you completed yesterday. We are asking you to
write more of your thoughts regarding your acceptance at Michigan State University.
When writing, consider the questions that follow these instructions. This exercise is designed to
help you reflect on how others (e.g., teachers, parents, mentors, friends) have helped
you along the way to this particular success. Please try to think of how other pe0ple
made a difference.

We ask that you do not share the details of this study with other students. Remember that

your responses will remain confidential. You will be fully debriefed at the conclusion of
the study.

Do not concern yourself with spelling, grammar, or composition. These are not
important. The only rule we have about your writing is that you write continuously for at
least 10 minutes about your acceptance at MSU. It is okay to repeat ideas if you run out
of things to write. A button to proceed to the next page will appear when 10 minutes has
passed, but you can continue writing past that time if you wish.

Who would you thank in light of your admission to MS U?

What sorts of things did they give up (or do that they didn’t have to) in order to
make this success possible for you?

What kinds of positive emotions do you feel as a result of being admitted to MS U?

99

Control group instructions

Day 1
What you are to write about during this study is the room in which you are sitting. We
would like you to provide a description of this room in as much detail as possible.

We ask that you do not share the details of this study with other students. Remember that
your responses will remain confidential. You will be fully debriefed at the conclusion of
the study.

Do not concern yourself with spelling, grammar, or composition. These are not
important. The only rule we have about your writing is that you write continuously for at
least 10 minutes providing a description of the room. It is okay to repeat ideas if you run
out of things to write. A button to proceed to the next page will appear when 10 minutes
has passed, but you can continue writing past that time if you wish.

During this session we would like you to provide a description of the room in
which you are sitting in as much detail as possible.

Day 2

Today’s exercise is similar to the one you completed yesterday. We are asking you to
provide another description, this time of a tree that you have seen. We would like
you to provide a description of this tree in as much detail as possible.

We ask that you do not share the details of this study with other students. Remember that

your responses will remain confidential. You will be fully debriefed at the conclusion of
the study.

Do not concern yourself with spelling, grammar, or composition. These are not
important. The only rule we have about your writing is that you write continuously for at
least 10 minutes providing a description of the tree. It is okay to repeat ideas if you run
out of things to write. A button to proceed to the next page will appear when 10 minutes
has passed, but you can continue writing past that time if you wish.

During this session we would like you to provide a description of a tree that you
have seen in as much detail as possible.

100

APPENDIX G

Ways of Savoring Checklist (WOSC; Bryant & Veroff, 2007)

For the next part of the study, please answer the following questions related to your
acceptance at Michigan State University.

During or following the writing exercises, how much did you think/write about the
following things related to your acceptance to Michigan State University?

Not at all To a
great
extent

Self-congratulation

10. I reminded myself how long I had waited to l 2 3 4 5
be accepted to MSU.

1 1.1 thought about what a triumph it was to be 1 2 3 4 5
accepted to MSU.

12.1 told myself how proud I was to be accepted 1 2 3 4 5
to MSU.

1 3.1 told myself how impressed others must be 1 2 3 4 5
that I was accepted to MSU.

14.1 reminded myself what a relief it was to be 1 2 3 4 5
accepted to MSU.

1.5.1 told myself why I deserved this good thing. 1 2 3 4 5

Counting Blessings (revised scale with revisions noted below)

 

Original Items Changes New Items

I reminded myself how lucky I was to modified I reminded myself how

have this good thing happen to me. fortunate I was to be accepted
to MSU.

I thought about what a lucky person I n/a I thought about what a lucky

am that so many good things have person I am that so many good

happened to me. things have happened to me.

I said a prayer of thanks for my good deleted n/a
forune.

new item I reflected on how grateful I
was to be accepted to MSU.

101

new item

new item

I reminded myself to thank
someone later.

I reminded myself to
appreciate my acceptance to

MSU.

Note: Response scale is identical to that of self-congratulation

102

APPENDIX H

Response to Positive Aflect (RPA) Questionnaire (Feldman, Joorrnann, & Johnson, 2008)

 

T 0 what extent during the writing exercises did :2;
you... Not at all extent
(Self-focus)

' 1. Think “I am achieving everything” 1 2 3 4 5
2. Think “I am living up to my potential” 1 2 3 4 5
3. Think about how proud you are of yourself 1 2 3 4 5
4. Think “I am getting everything done” 1 2 3 4 5
(Emotion-focus)

5. Think about how happy you feel. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Think about how strong you feel 1 2 3 4 5
7. Think about you feel up to doing everything 1 2 3 4 5
8. Notice how you feel full of energy 1 2 3 4 5
9. Savor the moment 1 2 3 4 5

103

APPENDIX I

When I [irst learned of my acceptance to MS U (prior to participating in this study), I

 

believed that. . .
To a
great
Not at all extent
1. My acceptance to MSU was due to internal 1 2 3 4 5
factors (e.g., ability or effort).
2. My acceptance to MSU was due to external 1 2 3 4 5

factors (e. g., others’ help or luck).

How much did you engage in the following behaviors and what were some of your
reactions when you first learned of your acceptance to Michigan State University @rior
to participating in this study?)

10.

11.

12.

Not at all To a
large
extent
I really savored my acceptance. 1 2 3 4 5
I celebrated with friends and family. 1 2 3 4 S
I daydreamed about my acceptance and how 1 2 3 4 5
excited I was.
I wrote about it to a friend or in a journal. 1 2 3 4 5
I treated myself to a reward because of my 1 2 3 4 5
acceptance.
I thought about what an accomplishment my 1 2 3 4 5
acceptance was.
I thought about my good qualities. 1 2 3 4 S
I thought about the things I did right to get 1 2 3 4 5
into college.
I thought about how grateful I was for my 1 2 3 4 5
acceptance.
I thought about the people to whom I was 1 2 3 4 5
thankful.

104

APPENDIX J

Self-Esteem Scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1968)

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. Please
indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement.

Strongly Strongly
disagree Agree
1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on 1 2 3 4 5
an equal plane with others.
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4 5
3. All in all, 1 am inclined to feel that I am a 1 2 3 4 5
failure.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other 1 2 3 4 5
people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. l 2 3 4 5
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 4 5
7. On the whole, 1 am satisfied with my self. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4 5
10. At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4 5

105

APPENDIX K

Contingencies of Self- Worth in Academic Competence (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, and
Bouvrette, 2003)

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. Please
indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement.

Not at all Very
like me much
like me
1. My opinion about myself isn’t tied to how 1 2 3 4 5
well I do in school. (R)
2. I feel better about myself when I know I’m 1 2 3 4 5
doing well academically.
3. Doing well in school gives me a sense of 1 2 3 4 5
self-respect.
4. My self-esteem is influenced by my I 2 3 4 5
academic performance.
5. I feel bad about myself whenever my 1 2 3 4 5

academic performance is lacking.

106

APPENDIX L

3 7-item version ofNarcissistic Personality Inventory (N PI; Emmons, 1987)
Please respond True or False to the following statements about yourself.

I see myself as a good leader.
1 would prefer to be a leader.
I really like to be the center of attention.
I like having authority over other people.
I would be willing to describe myself as a strong personality.
I have a natural talent for influencing people.
I am assertive.
People always seem to recognize my authority.
I like to look at my body.
. I like to look at myself in the mirror.

99°N9‘S‘PP’N2"

y—ny—n
"O

. I am an extraordinary person.

—s
N

. I like to display my body.

H
b)

. 1 have good taste when it comes to beauty.

—s
.k

. I think 1 am a special person.

H
M

. I like to be complimented.

—s
O\

. I am going to be a great person.

—s
\I

. I know that I am good because everyone keeps telling me so.

put
00

. Everybody likes to hear my stories.

—
\O

. I usually dominate any conversation.

N
O

. I can make anybody believe anything.

N
.—a

. 1 am a born leader.

N
N

. I can read people like a book.

N
b)

. I am apt to show off if I get the chance.

N
A

. People can learn a great deal from me.

N
LII

. I always know what I am doing.

N
0‘

. I can usually talk my way out of anything.

N
\I

. Superiority is something you are born with.

N
00

. I would do almost anything on a dare.
29. I expect a great deal from other people.
30. I am envious of other people's good fortune.

107

-1-1v-1-1—1—1-1-l-l-1—1-1-—1-—1—1—1—1—1-—1—1—4—1—1—1-—1-1—1-1-1-1
rn-n-nm-nm-nurn-nmmm-nm-n-n-nrn-n-n'n-n-n-n-nrn-n-nm

31. I like to be the center of attention.

32. I insist upon getting the respect that is due me.

33. I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve.
34. I have a strong will to power.

35. I get upset when people don't notice how I look when I go out in
pubhc.

36. I find it easy to manipulate people.
37. I am more capable than other people.

108

r-ir-l—l—lr-l

'-l-l

"U'TJTJ'I'I'TJ

'TJ'TJ

APPENDIX M

GQ-6 Gratitude Questionnaire (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002)

Strongly Strongly
disagree Agree
1. I have so much in life to be thankful for. l 2 3 4 S
2. If I had to list everything that I felt grateful I 2 3 4 S
for, it would be a very long list.
3. When I look at the world, 1 don’t see much 1 2 3 4 5
to be grateful for. (R)
4. I am grateful to a wide variety of people. 1 2 3 4 S
5. As I get older I find myself more able to 1 2 3 4 S
appreciate the people, events, and situations
that have been part of my life history.
6. Long amounts of time can go by before I l 2 3 4 5
feel grateful to something or someone. (R)
7. I have so much in life to be thankful for. 1 2 3 4 5

109

APPENDIX N

Condition descriptions provided to raters

Basking: This form of savoring positive outcomes primarily consists of praising oneself
for a success. An individual who basks considers the impressive nature of the success.
Basking is associated with an internal locus of causality and a person's "appreciation for
the way he/she is or what he/she has done". Examples include thoughts in reference to
one's strengths including intelligence, personality, or hard work.

Acknowledgment of Others: This form of savoring positive outcomes primarily consists
of a recognition that other people were a positive influence on one's path toward success.
Although it is associated with some degree of external locus of control, acknowledgment
of others does not preclude the assumption of primary responsibility for the positive
event. In its protoypical form, a specific benefactor(s) is identified that is credited with
helping the individual. Examples include thoughts in reference to how fortunate one is or
relating to the emotional or instrumental support provided by parents, friends, or teachers.

Control Topic: This is not a form of savoring success, but instead participants were asked

to write about neutral topics, such as descriptions of the room in which they were sitting
or a tree.

110

REFERENCES

Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding
value and meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of
Personality, 73, 79-114.

Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation.
Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1-32.

Bandura, A. (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
3 7, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eflicacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Barclay, L. J ., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the wounds of organizational injustice:
Examining the benefits of expressive writing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
511-523.

Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations
and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 5 7, 547-579.

Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction-perfonnance
relationship for college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 5 7, 393-412.

Bohlmeijer, E., Smit, F., Cujpers, P. (2003). Effects of reminiscence and life review on

late-life depression: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 18, 1088-1094.

Bohlmeijer, E., Valenkamp, V., Westerhof, Smit, F ., & Cujpers, P. (2005). Creative
reminiscence as an early intervention for depression: Results of a pilot project.
Aging and Mental Health, 9, 302-304.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.

Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How
different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1-40.

Bono, G., & McCullough, M. E. (2006). Positive responses to benefit and harm: Bringing

forgiveness and gratitude into cognitive psychotherapy. Journal of Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 20, 147-158.

111

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident
victims: ls happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
917-927.

Brown, J. D., Gallgagher, F. M. (1992). Coming to terms with failure: Private self-
enhancement and public self-effacement. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 28, 3-22.

Brown, S. D., Tramayne, S., Hoxha, D., Telander, K., Fan, X., & Lent, R. W. (in press).
Social cognitive predictors of college students’ academic performance and
persistence: A meta-analytic path analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Bryant, F. B. (1989). A four-factor model of perceived control: Avoiding, coping,
obtaining and savoring. Journal of Personality, 5 7, 773-797.

Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savoring beliefs inventory: A scale for measuring beliefs about
savouring. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 175-196.

Bryant, F. F., Smart, C. M., & King, S. P. (2005). Using the past to enhance the present:

Boosting happiness though positive reminiscence. Journal of Happiness Studies,
6, 227-260.

Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burton, C. M., & King, L. A. (2004). The health benefits of writing about intensely
positive experiences. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 150-163.

Bushman, B. J ., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egoism, narcissism, self-esteem,
and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.

Butler, A. C., Hokanson, J. E., & Flynn, H. A. (1994). Comparison of self-esteem lability
and low trait self-esteem as vulnerability factors for depression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 166-177.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the
positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358-368.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J ., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, 8., & Sloan, L. R.
(1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Crocker, J ., & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 200-203.

112

Crocker, J ., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of
self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908.

Crocker, J ., Sommers, S. R., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2002). Hopes dashed and dreams
fulfilled: Contingencies of self-worth and admissions to graduate school.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1275-1286.

Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2001). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive
cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37-69.

David, J. P., Green, P. J ., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles of neuroticism,
extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An Integrative model

of top-down and bottom-up influences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 149-159.

Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J ., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill:
Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305-
314.

Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive psychology in
clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 629-51.

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169-200.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1998). Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal
differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 301-331.

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 11-17.

Emmons, R. A., & Crumpler, C. A. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength: Appraising
the evidence. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 56-69.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An

experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-3 89.

113

Feldman, G. C., Joormann, J ., & Johnson, S. L. (2008). Responses to positive affect: A
self-report measure of rumination and dampening. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 32, 507-525.

F inkel, E. J ., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). Introduction: Self and relationships. In K. D. Vohs &
E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and
interpersonal processes (pp. 219-236). NY: Guilford Press.

F rattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 823-865.

Frederick, S., & Lowenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener,
& N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp.
302-329). New York: Russell Sage.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology, 2, 300-319.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Why positive emotions matter in organizations: Lessons from
the broaden-and-build model. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 4, 131-142.

Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing
effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237-258.

F rijda , N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358.

F rijda, N. H., & Sundararajan, L. (2007). Emotion refinement: A theory inspired by
Chinese poetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 227-241.

F ujita, F ., & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 158- l 64.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and inhibition in
everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1135-1 149.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when
things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive
events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 698-709.

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.

114

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of
the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,
112, 310-329.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building.
Journal of Management, 26, 657-684.

Grarnzow, R. H., & Willard, G. (2006). Exaggerating current and past performance:
Motivated self-enhancement versus reconstructive memory. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1114-1125.

Greenier, K. G., Kemis, M. H., Whisenhunt, C. R., Waschull, S. B., Berry, A. J .,
Herlocker, C. E., & Abend, T. (1999). Individual differences in reactivity to daily
events: Examining the roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Journal of
Personality, 6, 185-208.

Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996) Shared reality: How social verificatioin makes the
subjective objective. Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, 3, 28-84.

Harrist, S., Carlozzi, B. L., McGovern, A. R., & Harrist, A. W. (2007). Benefits of
expressive writing and expressive talking about life goals. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 923-930.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis
and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Heine, S. J ., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal
need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.

Hemenover, S. H. (2003). Individual differences in rate of affect change: Studies in
affective chronometry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 , 121 -
131.

House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social
support. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293-318.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

lsen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1 122-1 131.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J ., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-

job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 36-407.

115

Just, N., & Alloy, L. B. (1997). The response styles of depression: Tests and an extension
of the theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 221-229.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2005). LISREL 8.72. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, I 4, 1-26.

Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of
self-esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality, 73, 1569-1605.

King, L. A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798-807.

Kloss, J. D., & Lisman, S. A. (2002). An exposure-based examination of the effects of
written emotional disclosure. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 31-46.

Langston, C. A. (1994). Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: Expressive
responses to positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 7,
1 112-1 125.

Larson, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
129-141.

Lazarus, R. S., & F olkman, S. (1984). Stress Appraisal, and Coping. NY: Springer.

Leary, M. R. (2006). A functional, evolutionary analysis of the impact of interpersonal
events on intrapersonal self-processes. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self
and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp.
219-236). NY: Guilford Press.

Lefcourt, H. M., von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox, D. J. (1979). The
multidimensional-multiattributional causality scale: The development of a goal

specific locus of control scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 11, 286-
304.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265-268.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628.

116

Lykken, D. T., & Tellgen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon.
Psychological Science, 7, 186-189.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The
architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-1 3 1.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs and benefits of writing,
talking, and thinking about life’s triumphs and defeats. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 692-708.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Tucker, K. L. (1998). Implications of individual differences in
subjective happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life events.
Motivation and Emotion, 22, 155-186.

Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York: Wiley.

Marlo, H., & Wagner, M. K. (1999). Expression of negative and positive events through
writing: Implications for psychotherapy and health. Psychology and Health, 14,
193-215.

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some rurninative thoughts. In R. Wyer Jr. (Ed.),
Ruminative thoughts: Vol. 11. Advances in social cognition (pp. 1-47). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). T he farther reaches of human nature. Richmond, CA: Maurice
Bassett Publishing.

Mason, M. F., Norton, M. 1., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae,
C. N. (2007). Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent
thought. Science, 315, 393-395.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The
revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 566-573.

McCullough, M. E. (2002). Savoring life, past and present: Explaining what hope and
gratitude share in common. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 302-304.

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A
conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 112-127.

McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J ., & Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude in intermediate
affective terrain: Links of grateful moods to individual differences and daily

emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 295-
309.

117

McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to
success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 , 93 7-946.

McWiliams, N., & Lependorf, S. (1990). Narcissistic pathology of everday life: The
denial of remorse and gratitude. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26, 43 0-45 1.

Multon, K. D., Brown,.S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 30-38.

Nezlek, J. B. (2005). Distinguishing affective and non-affective reactions to daily events.
Journal of Personality, 73, 1539-1568.

Nezlek, J. B., & Gable, S. L. (2001 ). Depression as a moderator of relationships between
positive daily events and day-to-day psychological adjustment. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 7, 1692-1704.

Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-day relationships among self-concept

clarity, self-esteem, daily event, and mood. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 201-211.

Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2003). Affect- and self-based models of relationships
between daily events and daily well-being. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 584-596.

Organ, D. W. (1977) A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-
perforrnance hypothesis. The Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53.

Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (1999). [Development of the Contingent Self-esteem
Scale]. Unpublished data, University of Georgia.

Parker, L. E., & Crocker, J. (2005). Interpersonal consequences of seeking self-esteem.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1587-1598.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological
assessment, 5, 164-172.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Beall, S. K. (1986). Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an

understanding of inhibition and disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95,
274-281.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J ., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-
enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19-38.

118

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). Principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.

Rime, B., Mesquita, B., Philippot, P., & Boca, S. (1991). Beyond the emotional event:
Six studie on the social sharing of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 435-465.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., & Langley, R. (2004). Do psychosocial
skills and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261-288.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.

Rothbaum, F ., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the
self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 5-37.

Rozin, P., & Royzrnan, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and
contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.

Russell, D., & McAuley, E. (1986). Causal attributions, causal dimensions, and affective

reactions to success an failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50.
1174-1185.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 7,
1069-1081.

Ryff, C., Burton, H. S., & Love, G. D. (2004). Positive health: Connecting well-being
with biology. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359, 1383-1394.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.

Schwarz, N. (2001). Feelings as information: Implications for affective influences on
information processing. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of Mood
and Cognition (pp. 159-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-
421.

119

Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the
words: The social effect of expressive writing. Psychological Science, 1 7, 660-
664.

Smallwood, J ., Fiore, S. M., Kam, J., McSpadden, M., Linville, P., Hasher, L., &
Schooler, J. W. (2009). A sudden lapse of imagination: Processing overlap
between ofl task thinking and creative thought. Unpublished manuscript.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.

Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the
sadder- but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38.

Suh, E., Diener, E., Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent
events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1091-1 102.

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The
mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of gratitude. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233-236.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intentions, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings.
Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two
facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506-525.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007b). Emerging insights into the nature and fimction of
pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 147-150.

Watkins, P. C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness:
Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-
being. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 431-452.

Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellgen, 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.

120

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985) Toward a consensual structure of mood.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lennan, D. (1978). The cognition-emotion process in
achievement-related contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 7,
1211-1220.

Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., & Michela, J. L. (2003). Savoring versus dampening: Self-
esteem differences in regulating positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 566-580.

Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., Newby-Clark, I. R., & Ross, M. (2005). Snatching defeat
from the jaws of victory: Self-esteem differences in the experience and

anticipation of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 764-
780.

Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4 7, 1013-
1024.

Zautra, A. J ., Affleck, G. G., Tennen, H., Reich, J. W., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Dynamic
approaches to emotions and stress in everyday life: Bolger and Zuckerman

reloaded with positive as well as negative affects. Journal of Personality, 73 ,
1511-1538.

Zautra, J. W., & Reich, A. J. (1980) Positive life events and reports of well-being: Some
useful distinctions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 657-670.

Zautra, A., & Simons, L. S. (1979). Some effects of positive life events on community
health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 441-451.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational
bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.

121

   

”11111111111111illillljllljjljll“