Display options
Cite
Davis DE, Choe E, Meyers J, et al. Thankful for the little things: A meta-analysis of gratitude interventions. J Couns Psychol. 2015;63(1):20-31doi: 10.1037/cou0000107.
Davis, D. E., Choe, E., Meyers, J., Wade, N., Varjas, K., Gifford, A., Quinn, A., Hook, J. N., Van Tongeren, D. R., Griffin, B. J., & Worthington, E. L. (2016). Thankful for the little things: A meta-analysis of gratitude interventions. Journal of counseling psychology, 63(1), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000107
Davis, Don E, et al. "Thankful for the little things: A meta-analysis of gratitude interventions." Journal of counseling psychology vol. 63,1 (2016): 20-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000107
Davis DE, Choe E, Meyers J, Wade N, Varjas K, Gifford A, Quinn A, Hook JN, Van Tongeren DR, Griffin BJ, Worthington EL. Thankful for the little things: A meta-analysis of gratitude interventions. J Couns Psychol. 2016 Jan;63(1):20-31. doi: 10.1037/cou0000107. Epub 2015 Nov 16. PMID: 26575348.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Couns Psychol. 2016 Jan;63(1):20-31. doi: 10.1037/cou0000107. Epub 2015 Nov 16.

Thankful for the little things: A meta-analysis of gratitude interventions.

Journal of counseling psychology

Don E Davis, Elise Choe, Joel Meyers, Nathaniel Wade, Kristen Varjas, Allison Gifford, Amy Quinn, Joshua N Hook, Daryl R Van Tongeren, Brandon J Griffin, Everett L Worthington

Affiliations

  1. Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University.
  2. Department of Psychology, Iowa State University.
  3. Department of Psychology, University of North Texas.
  4. Department of Psychology, Hope College.
  5. Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.

PMID: 26575348 DOI: 10.1037/cou0000107

Abstract

A recent qualitative review by Wood, Froh, and Geraghty (2010) cast doubt on the efficacy of gratitude interventions, suggesting the need to carefully attend to the quality of comparison groups. Accordingly, in a series of meta-analyses, we evaluate the efficacy of gratitude interventions (ks = 4-18; Ns = 395-1,755) relative to a measurement-only control or an alternative-activity condition across 3 outcomes (i.e., gratitude, anxiety, psychological well-being). Gratitude interventions outperformed a measurement-only control on measures of psychological well-being (d = .31, 95% confidence interval [CI = .04, .58]; k = 5) but not gratitude (d = .20; 95% CI [-.04, .44]; k = 4). Gratitude interventions outperformed an alternative-activity condition on measures of gratitude (d = .46, 95% CI [.27, .64]; k = 15) and psychological well-being (d = .17, 95% CI [.09, .24]; k = 20) but not anxiety (d = .11, 95% CI [-.08, .31]; k = 5). More-detailed subdivision was possible on studies with outcomes assessing psychological well-being. Among these, gratitude interventions outperformed an activity-matched comparison (d = .14; 95% CI [.01, .27]; k = 18). Gratitude interventions performed as well as, but not better than, a psychologically active comparison (d = -.03, 95% CI [-.13, .07]; k = 9). On the basis of these findings, we summarize the current state of the literature and make suggestions for future applied research on gratitude. (PsycINFO Database Record

(c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

MeSH terms

Publication Types