Introduction
The dependent variable for this study is the psychological well-being of a person while the independent variable is the generosity exercise. A t-test will be implemented to see if there are statistically significant differences in the means of control and intervention groups. The higher t-value will confirm the hypothesis that generosity does contribute to the improvement of personal well-being. Additionally, based on the T-test we will be able to determine the p-value. P-value is crucial for this study since it enables us to assess the statistical significance of the study. If the value of P will not exceed 0.05, we will reject the null hypothesis and assume that there is a significant relationship between these variables. Once a statistically significant difference is established an analysis of the variance (ANOVA) will be performed. This method will allow us to see the causes of variance not only between but also within the groups. By employing this model one can understand what other factors, apart from generosity, can affect the well-being of a person. In this case, we can speak about such factors as age, gender, income level, education, etc. The results of ANOVA will show which of these factors has the strongest effect on the dependent variable.
Procedure
The researcher will obtain written approval from the clinic’s President and the Southeastern University’s Internal review board before the start of data collection. The researcher will be assigned certain days to enlist participants from the mental health clinic. The researcher will provide a journal exercise packet and survey tool to all participants. The participants must complete all 5 weeks to ensure accurate data. Once the participants complete the 5-week exercise they will be debriefed.
Generosity Condition
Participants in the generosity group will be provided the following instruction:
Generosity can help you live a more fulfilled life. Many people find satisfaction by being generous to others. Being generous to ourselves enables us to give others—partners, family, friends, or even strangers. With these exercises, we offer some activities for being generous (giving) to self and others.
Each week you will be generous to a specific person or persons by giving your time, caring, love, talent, strength, support, or money freely without expecting of return. We provide some examples but please use your creativity to find the best generous acts that seem fit. You may perform as many generous actions as you would like/can but a minimum of two actions each week is encouraged. Please write down the generous acts you have done each week on the attached sheet.
Week 1: be generous to yourself
Most of the time you are doing things for others but this week, you will be generous to yourself. Doing something special for yourself is a good way to remember the life, work, and love you’ve made each day. Focusing on the positive and appreciating this aspect of your life may strengthen your overall well-being and happiness.
Examples for being generous to self:
- Take 10 minutes a night to read a book or take a short walk to refresh your mind and body
- Treat yourself to something or make something (food, clothes, cake, etc)
- Visit someone that brightens your day
Week 2: be generous to your loved ones
(spouse, boy/girlfriend/significant other or best friends)
Doing things for a special person in your life encourages a sense of selfless. Without expectations, generosity (altruism) can potentially create a more giving atmosphere in a relationship
Examples:
- Call/visit the special person during his or her lunch break or when he or her is free to see how the person is doing
- Treat him or her to/make some food he/she would really enjoy
- Write a card to the person expressing your appreciation and gratitude to have her/him in your life.
Week 3: Be generous to members of your family
(children, parents, grandparents, or other relatives)
Performing generous acts for members of your family can focus your attention on the needs of someone you love. Generosity can potentially create a more caring and giving atmosphere in your family relationship.
Examples:
- Call/visit the special person during his or her lunch break or when him or her is free to see how the person is doing
- Buy him or her with something he/she really would like to have.
- M some food she/he would really enjoy
Week 4: Be generous to neighbors or members from your community
(persons you know from neighborhood, church, school, work places, etc)
This person is someone in your social, religious, or neighborhood circle that you do not know very well; be generous whenever you can to others in an effort to help them in their work or project.
Examples:
- Help a neighbor with gardening, painting, or taking trashcans to the curb, or cleaning around the house if needed
- Help your local community center/church/school/work with a project. Help set up, donate clothes, furniture or volunteer to help, lend a hand where needed.
Week 5: Be generous to a larger community
(strangers)
Find the need of the community and volunteer your time to help people who you don’t know. It may seem challenge to extend the exercise to people you do not know as well. However, the effects of generosity in this situation not only assist you with a sense of selflessness but also gratefulness for your current state of life and ability to offer assistance.
Examples:
- Help a stranger struggling to carry his or her groceries
- Stranger doesn’t have enough change for the bus, cash register, parking meters if you can offer to help
- Volunteer at a church, community center using your talent, strength, support, or money
- Donate food or clothes to a local charity
Control condition
Participants in the control group will be given a packet of the weekly report to write their daily dairy without specific instruction.
These separate instructions are written on the weekly report, followed by half-page blank lines for participants to write down their generosity acts or gratitude events depending on their assigned experimental conditions. Reports are collected at each Monday or first meeting of the week to ensure compliance.
Psychometrics
Demographic information
The demographic data collected from the participants will include age, gender, income, mental health diagnosis (if applicable), education level, and race. We will require this information for ANOVA analysis that shows what kind of factors can impact the psychological well-being of a respondent.
Way of Measuring Psychological Well-being
Such a concept as psychological well-being includes a great number of elements, it is vital to select those measurement tools which can capture each of these elements. Among the most widespread techniques, we can single out Psychological Well-being Scale proposed by Carol Ryff and Corey Keyes (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). The psychological well-being scale consists of 6 dimensions which include autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance (Ryff & Keyes, 1995, p 719). Each of the respondents will be asked to answer 54 questions because the shortened form can diminish the internal consistency of the test and subsequently invalidate the results.
The second tool which is often used to assess psychological well-being is the quality of life inventory, developed by Michael Frisch. It assesses an individual’s quality of life through self-report based on the importance they place on each of 16 life domains along with their current satisfaction with each domain. This scale focuses on aspects of life such as the ability to attain one’s goals, self-esteem, helping other people, relations with friends, relatives and co-workers, etc (Frisch, 2006, p 59). The key advantage of this tool is that it has a very high internal consistency rate, ranging from 79 to 89. The main rationale for the use of this scale is that it may explain how generosity impacts a person’s relations with other people, both at home and at work.
While measuring a person’s overall satisfaction with the quality of his/her life we will rely on the so-called Satisfaction with Life Scale, designed by Ed Diener et al (1985). The measurement tool is based on the premise that while evaluating happiness or satisfaction with life, scholars need to take the so-called holistic approach instead of focusing on some separate aspects like self-esteem or autonomy (Diener et al, 1985, p 71). The thing is that health, creativity, or relationship with others are important for every person, but people can place different values on each of these aspects (Diener et al, 1985, p 71). It should be noted that the average internal consistency of this scale is 72, and this degree of reliability is quite suitable for this research.
When speaking about holistic approaches to measuring well-being, we should also mention the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) developed by Sonja Lyubomirsky. It consists of 4 items arranged in a 7-point format (Lyubomirsky, as cited in Lehman & Simmons, 2008, p 256). This scale also has a high consistency rate and helps to assess a person’s perception of his/her happiness.
Furthermore, it is necessary to apply The State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory which is aimed at measuring such concepts as seriousness, cheerfulness, or some traits of the character. This tool consists of 30 items that prompt the respondent to answer 4-point Likert scale questions (Ruch, Kohler, & Thriel, 1998). On the whole, this tool focused on a person’s ability to retain a sense of humor and cheerfulness.
The main rationale for using various measurement tools is that well-being is a very multifaceted notion comprising a large number of elements. We will use holistic approaches, suggested by Diener et al as well as by Sonja Lyubomirsky to evaluate the overall effects of generosity. Secondly, we will adopt those scales which view well-being as a set of components (self-esteem, personal growth, relations with others, etc). Such a methodological framework is more likely to produce accurate results.
Reference List
Ariely, D., Anat, B., & Stephan, M. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544-555.
Bandura, A. & McDonald, F.J. (1963). Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(3), 274-281.
Brown, S. L., Neese, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, A. D. (2003). Providing support may be more beneficial than receiving it: Results from a perspective study of morality. Psychological Science. 14, pp. 320-237.
Boyd, M. A. (2008). Psychiatric Nursing: Contemporary Practice. US: Lippinot Williams & Wilkins.
Claire, A. & Manuel, V. (2001). Developing Generosity: donating blood (3rd ed). New York Printing Press.
Collett, J. L., & Morrissey, C. A. (2007).The Social Psychology Of Generosity.Web.
Diener E. Emmons R, Larsen R, & Griffin S. The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, (49, ) 1, p 71 -75.
Dumont, F., Wedding, D., & Corsini, R. J. (2008). Current psychotherapies. New York: Cengage Learning.
Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1998). Avoidance personal goals and the personality–illness relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1282–1299.
Emmons, R. & McCullough, M. (2003). Counting blessing versus burdens: An experimental Investigation of gratitude and subjective well being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377-389.
Field, M. F., Hernandez-Reif, M., Quintino, O., Schanberg, S., & Kuhn C. (1998). Elderly retired volunteers benefit from giving massage therapy to infants. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 17, 229-239.
Fincham, F., & Julian, B. (1978). Disabled, Normal achieving, and Gifted Children. Child Development, 1978, 49, 530-533.
Frisch M. (2006). Quality of life therapy: applying a life satisfaction approach to positive psychology and cognitive therapy. NY: John Wiley and Sons
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. New York: Claredon Press.
Grant, A.M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1), 48-58.
Greenberg, J., (1982). Countering inequity with inequity: Over-rewarding generosity and under-rewarding greed. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(2), 181–185.
Hunter, K. I., &. Linn, M.W. (1981). Psychosocial differences between elderly volunteers and non-volunteers. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 12 (3), 205–213.
Kradin, R. (2002). Generosity: a psychological and interpersonal motivational factor of therapeutic relevance. Journal of analytical psychology, 44 (2), 221-236.
LaFollete, H. (2002). Understanding ethics: theory and practice (2nd ed). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A general theory of love. New York: Random House.
Lehman P & Simmons C. (2009). Strengths-based batterer intervention: a new paradigm in ending family violence. New Jersey: Springer Publishing Company.
Lightman, E. (1982) Continuity in social policy behaviors: The case of voluntary blood donation. Journal of Social Policy, 10 (1), pp. 53-79.
Luks, A. (1990). Helper’s high: Volunteering makes people feel good, physically and emotionally and like “runner’s calm” it is probably good for your health. Psychology Today, 22(10), 43-42.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L.A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Mac Donald K. (1984). An ethological-social learning theory of development of altruism: Implications for human sociobiology. Ethology and Sociobiology 5, 97-109.
Machan, T. R. (1998). Generosity: Virtue in civil society. Washington, D.C: Cato Institute.
McCullough, M.E. (2002). Characteristics of Generosity. Journal of personality and social well being, 60 (4), 410-421.
Mark A. B., Laura, M. K., & Jeffrey, A. H. (1979). Inducing affect about self or Effects on generosity in children other: Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 164-167.
Moll, Jorge, Frank Krueger, Roland Zahn, et al. 2006. Human Fronto-Mesolimbic Networks Guide Decisions about Charitable Donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (42): 15623–15628.
Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. US: The Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Phillip, R. S. Does Gratitude Promote Prosocial Behavior? The moderating Role of Attachment Security.
Musick, M., and Wilson, J. (2003), ‘Volunteering and depression: the role of psychological and social resources in different age groups’, Social Science and Medicine, 56(2), pages 259–69.
Nelson-Jones, R. (2004). Cognitive humanistic therapy: Buddhism, Christianity and being fully human. London: SAGE.
Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Stefan Stu¨rmer, S. S. (2005). Prosocial Emotions and Helping: The Moderating Role. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (3), 532-546.
Polak, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (2006). Is Gratitude an Alternative to Materialism? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 343–360.
Raatma, L. (2002).Generosity. Mankato: Capstone Press.
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183.
Rosmond, R., Dallman, M.F. & Björntorp P. (1998). Stress-Related Cortisol Secretion in Men: Relationships with Abdominal Obesity and Endocrine, Metabolic and Hemodynamic Abnormalities. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 83 (6), pages 1853-1859.
Richard, M. R., & Edward, L. (2000). Deci intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54– 67.
Ruch, W., Kohler, G. & van Thriel (1996). Assessing the “humorous temperament”: Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness-Inventory – STCI. In W. Ruch (Ed.), Measurement of the sense of humor [special issue]. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9, 303-339.
Ryff. C & Keyes C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Positive Psychology: An Introduction. Web.
Seligman, P., & Park, N. (2005). Generosity and Psychological well-being. Social Psychology, 83, 112-127
Sternberg,E.M.(2001).The balance within: The science connecting health and emotions. New York: Freeman.
Smith, C., Emerson, M. O., & Snell, P. (2008). Passing the plate: why American Christians don’t give away more money. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press US.
Spencer, H. (2009). The Principles of Psychology. BiblioBazaar.
Stephanie L. B., Randolph, M. N., Amiram, D. V., & Dylan, M. S. (2003). Providing social support may be more beneficial than receiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14(4).
Stephen, G. P. Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(2), 66-77.
Sin, N. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). “Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis,” Journal of Clinical Psychology in Session, vol. 65(5): 467-487.
Smith, C. (2009). Science of Generosity. John Templeton Foundation.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62, pp. 694-713.
Zak, P., Stanton, A., & Ahnadi, S. (2007). Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.