Psychology of Intimate Relationships Week 2

Article

A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive experiences

Nathaniel M. Lambert 1 , A. Marlea Gwinn

2 ,

Roy F. Baumeister 3 , Amy Strachman

4 ,

Isaac J. Washburn 5 , Shelly L. Gable

6 , and

Frank D. Fincham 3

Abstract In a series of five studies we examined the relationship between sharing positive experiences and positive affect using a diary method (Study 1) and laboratory manipula- tions (Studies 2 and 3). All of these studies demonstrated that sharing the positive experience heightened its impact on positive affect. In Study 4, we conducted a four-week journal study in which the experimental participants kept a journal of grateful experiences and shared them with a partner twice a week. Control participants either kept a journal of grateful experience (without sharing), or kept a journal of class learnings and shared it with a partner. Those who shared their positive experiences increased in positive affect, happi- ness, and life satisfaction over the course of four weeks. Study 5 showed that those who received an ‘‘active-constructive’’ response to good news (enthusiastic support) expressed more positive affect than participants in all other conditions, indicating that the response of the listener is important. In sum, our findings suggest that positive affect, hap- piness, and life satisfaction reach a peak only when participants share their positive experi- ences and when the relationship partner provides an active-constructive response.

Keywords capitalization, friendship, positive affect

1 Brigham Young University, USA 2

University of Kentucky, USA 3

Florida State University, USA 4 eHarmony Labs, USA 5 Oregon Social Learning Center, USA 6

University of California Santa Barbara, USA

Corresponding author:

Nathaniel M. Lambert, Brigham Young University, 2065 JFSB, Provo, Utah 84602, USA

Email: [email protected]

J S P R

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

30(1) 24–43 ª The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0265407512449400 spr.sagepub.com

Happiness held is the seed; happiness shared is the flower. Author unknown

Although negative emotional experiences are often dramatic and impactful (and have

captured the lion’s share of researcher interest), positive emotions are considerably more

prevalent. In a given day, people have about three positive experiences to each negative

experience (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Seeking out others when good things happen has been

referred to as capitalization (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004; Langston, 1994). In

other words, capitalizing is sharing positive news in your life with others. Sharing

positive experiences is common: people disclose their most positive daily experience

60–80% of the time (Gable et al., 2004). The primary objective of the current studies was to demonstrate a causal relationship that sharing one’s positive experience would have

with positive mood, above and beyond the possible effects of reliving the experience or

having a pleasant interaction, which builds on prior correlational research.

It could be that happy people simply share more positive experiences and that there is

no causal link between sharing positive experiences and positive affect. Prior research

(e.g., Gable et al., 2004; Langston, 1994) has shown some correlation between sharing

positive experiences and positive mood; however, most prior research has been some-

what limited to correlational methods. The primary exception (Reis et al., 2010) focused

on how sharing positive experiences may build trust and prosocial orientation towards

the listener with whom one shares. Thus, one primary objective of the current studies is

to demonstrate a causal relationship between sharing and positive mood.

The current studies had three other objectives. It may be that simply reliving or savoring

the positive experience is enough to increase positive affect. If this were the case, then

simply writing about an experience should yield an increase in positive affect, but the

research on this topic is mixed. For instance, Koo, Algoe, Wilson, and Gilbert (2008)

found that thinking about positive events that might never have been, had a stronger effect

on positive affect than was thinking about the presence of a positive event. In contrast,

several studies indicate that writing about a positive experience yields improvement in

mood. For instance, gratitude journals have also garnered attention from researchers, and

participants who kept a daily gratitude journal improved in mood and coping behaviors

(Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Another study found that participants who wrote about

intense positive emotions showed enhanced positive mood, as compared to those who

wrote on a control topic (Burton & King, 2004). Thus, writing about positive experiences

has been linked to boosts in positive affect. Therefore, a second objective of the current

studies is to rule out the possibility that any boosts in mood following the sharing of a

positive experience are simply due to reliving the experience by writing and thinking about

it. We predict that sharing a positive experience will uniquely contribute to positive affect.

Thirdly, it could just be that simply having a pleasant interaction with a partner is

what is responsible for an increase in positive mood. Prior research (e.g., Vittengl &

Holt, 1998) suggests that positive forms of social interaction, specifically fun/active and

necessary/informational, are related to elevated positive affect. Thus, another goal of the

present investigation is to rule out the possibility that simply having a pleasant inter-

action with a close relationship partner provides the boost in positive affect.

The final objective is to examine how the role of partner response to an event affects

the degree of positive emotion experienced by the participant. Some prior research

Lambert et al. 25

indicates that the partner’s response is very important. In fact, responses to positive

events tend to be better predictors of relationship well-being than responses to negative

events (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006) and an enthusiastic, supportive response

has been positively correlated with commitment, satisfaction, intimacy, and trust (Gable

et al., 2004). Lyubomirsky, Sousa, and Dickerhoof (2006) contrasted the benefits of writ-

ing, talking, and thinking about positive events. They found that those who talked about

their positive experiences reported lower life satisfaction compared to those who wrote or

thought about the experience. Hence the implication was that talking is relatively ineffec-

tive, if not detrimental. However, participants in this study talked into a tape recorder and

received no in-person affirmation about their positive experience from a live person. We

reasoned that sharing with a relationship partner is qualitatively different from speaking

into a tape recorder because it elicits help, validation, and support from a trusted other

in completing a second appraisal of the experience. Having the positivity of one’s experi-

ence validated by another person is what makes sharing an experience different from other

means of revisiting, such as writing about the experience. We suspect that the reaction of

the listener will be paramount in that it will affect the amount of positive emotion experi-

enced by the sharer following a positive event.

Overview of Studies

In a series of five studies, we sought to test whether sharing of a positive experience with

a relationship partner and the reaction of the listener might increase positive emotion.

Study 1 sought to replicate the primary effect of prior research that sharing positive

experiences positively corresponds with positive emotion. Studies 2 and 3 examined

whether sharing positive experiences was related causally to enhanced positive affect

and life satisfaction in a laboratory setting. These studies also were designed to rule out

the alternative explanation that simply reliving the experience through writing about it

(Studies 2 and 3) would boost positive affect or that having a pleasant interaction with a

close relationship partner would account for changes in affect (Study 3).

In Study 4 we wanted to test whether regular sharing of positive experiences would

lead to gains in happiness and positive affect over the course of four weeks, using a

journaling technique. Participants either shared grateful experiences, wrote about

grateful experiences, or shared neutral experiences with a partner and wrote about their

experience in an online journal twice a week for four weeks. We hypothesized that those

who shared their grateful experiences would report the strongest increases in happiness,

life satisfaction, and positive affect.

Lastly, in Study 5 we examined how the response of one’s relationship partner to a

positive event may impact one’s experience of positive emotion following the event and

hypothesized that only an active-constructive response would boost positive emotion.

Study 1

The primary objective of Study 1 was to replicate prior studies (e.g., Gable et al., 2004)

by testing the relationship between sharing positive experiences and positive affect using

both pre and post-test scores and diary data. We hypothesized that participants who had a

26 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

higher tendency to share positive experiences at Time 1 would have more positive affect

and satisfaction with life at Time 2, after controlling for initial positive affect and satis-

faction with life. Furthermore, using multilevel modeling, we analyzed the journal

reports (based on assessments administered three times a week) and hypothesized that

participants would report greater positive affect and satisfaction with life on days when

they shared their positive experiences.

Method

Participants. Participants were 260 undergraduate students from a Southeastern university who agreed to participate in exchange for extra credit. Participants ranged in age from 18

to 41 with a median age of 19 and reported about sharing positive experiences with either

a romantic partner or close friend. This person is referred to as ‘‘partner.’’ Participants

completed pretest measures and within two days began the journaling measures for a

period of four weeks, followed immediately by the post-test measures.

Pre and post measures

Sharing positive experiences. We used a four-item measure that assessed the degree to which participants shared positive experiences with others (Lambert, Gwinn, Fincham, & Still-

man, 2012). Example questions included, ‘‘I am the type of person that loves to share it with

others when something good happens to me,’’ ‘‘I almost always let the people that I’m close

to know when I feel good and why,’’ ‘‘I usually keep good feelings bottled up and don’t share

them very often,’’ and ‘‘I’m constantly telling people my good news.’’ Choices ranged from

‘‘Strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly agree.’’ The alpha for the current sample was .89.

Positive and Negative Affect Scales. Positive affect was measured using the 10 items from the Positive dimension of the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS), a widely

used measure of positive and negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The

alphas for the current sample were .92 for Time 1 and .94 at Time 2.

Satisfaction with Life. Satisfaction with life was measured using the well-validated Satis- faction with Life scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). This measure com-

prises five items (e.g., ‘‘In most ways my life is close to ideal,’’ ‘‘If I could live my life

over again, I would change nothing.’’). Coefficient alphas in the present sample were

.88 at Time 1 and .86 at Time 2.

Journaling Measures

To assess the degree to which participants shared their good experiences with a close

relationship partner, we asked participants to denote their agreement to the following

questions three times each week: ‘‘I shared my positive feelings (e.g., about something

good that happened to me) with my partner since the last time I completed the log’’ and

‘‘I shared my positive feelings (e.g., about something good that happened to me) with

someone other than (or in addition to) my partner since the last log.’’ Participants

Lambert et al. 27

completed this online log every Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday evening and late

responses were not admitted. Participants also completed the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988)

three times each week (alphas a > .70). To assess their life satisfaction, participants answered the question, ‘‘How satisfied were you with your life overall since the last log?’’

Results

Attrition

Fifty-six participants failed to complete measures at Time 2. To ensure that attrition did

not affect the results of our study, we compared Time 1 scores of all variables of parti-

cipants who dropped out with those who remained in the study. There were no differ-

ences between the groups with any of the variables (F values < 4, p values > .05).

Sharing positive experiences and positive emotion: Pre and post-test results

We used hierarchal regression analysis to determine whether initial sharing of positive

news would predict participants’ later positive affect when controlling for their initial

positive affect scores. In the first step, we entered the control variable of initial positive

affect. In the second step, we entered, baseline positive experience sharing scores. As

predicted, greater tendency toward sharing of positive experiences at Time 1 was

associated with greater positive affect scores four weeks later, controlling for initial

positive affect (b ¼ .15, p ¼ .01). Furthermore, greater tendency toward sharing of positive experiences at Time 1 was marginally related to higher levels of life satisfaction

at Time 2, controlling for initial life satisfaction (b ¼ .09, p ¼ .08).

Diary results

We tested the main effect of time, sharing with partner and others, and the interaction

between time and sharing with partner and others in a multilevel model. Stata 11 soft-

ware was used in running the model. Both sharing with partner and sharing with others

was grand mean centered, and time was centered at the first occasion. Overall, we had

260 participants with 1893 observations with an average of 7.3 out of 9 data points for

the life satisfaction model and 260 participants with 1902 observations with an average

of 7.3 out of 9 data points for the positive affect model. The model used for both life

satisfaction and positive affect was a two-level random-intercept model.

Level 1:

yij ¼ �0j þ�1jðTimeÞþ�2jðShared PartnerÞþ�3jðShared OtherÞ þ�4jðShared Partner � TimeÞþ�5jðShared Other � TimeÞþ eij

Level 2:

�0j ¼ �01 þ r0j

�1j ¼ �11 þ r1j

28 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

�2j ¼ �21

�3j ¼ �31

�4j ¼ �41

�5j ¼ �51 The model was significant for both life satisfaction (Wald �2 (5) ¼ 143.90, p < 0.001) and positive affect (Wald �2 (5) ¼ 107.85, p < 0.001) and both had large intraclass correlations: 0.45 for life satisfaction and 0.37 for positive affect. The variance at the

individual level, as reported in Table 1, is substantial for both and the likelihood ratio �2

for the multilevel model versus an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with 1 degree

of freedom was 509.66, p < .001 for life satisfaction and 406.30, p < .001 for positive

affect. The combination of these facts supports the use of a multilevel model.

The main effect of sharing with partner was significant for both life satisfaction

(B3 ¼ 0.132, p < 0.01) and positive affect (B3 ¼ 0.101, p < 0.01), as was the main effect of sharing with others (life satisfaction: B4 ¼ 0.177, p < 0.001; positive affect: B4 ¼ 0.148, p < 0.001). There were no interactions between time and the sharing variables, indicating

some stability of the variables over time for this population over this period of time (see

Table 1 for full results). Also included in the table are the effect sizes for the para-

meters using the residual variance as the denominator (Feingold, 2009).

Discussion

Both the pre-post data and the diary data indicated that the tendency to share positive

experiences and the sharing of positive experiences were positively related to changes

in positive affect and life satisfaction over time. These data indicate that the general ten-

dency to share positive experiences predicts positive emotion indicators over time, and

also indicate that on the days when participants shared a positive experience, they also

reported higher positive affect and life satisfaction. These findings replicated a similar

Table 1. Results of random-intercept growth models

Life satisfaction Positive affect

Predictor B z ES B z ES

Sharing with partner 0.130 2.91** 0.128 0.095 2.80** 0.159 Sharing with others 0.189 4.23*** 0.186 0.152 4.44*** 0.254 Constant 4.943 73.21*** 5 Random effects Variance S.E. Variance S.E. Slope 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.001 Intercept 0.704 0.083 0.258 0.036 Residual 1.019 0.038 0.599 0.022

Note. **p � .01 and ***p � .001.

Lambert et al. 29

effect found by Gable and colleagues (2004) on how sharing a favorable event positively

corresponds to positive affect and satisfaction with life.

Clear causal conclusions cannot, however, be drawn either from these findings or

from similar prior work because of the correlational design. In principle, sharing positive

experiences could have brought positive emotion, but it is also possible that pleasant

experiences themselves caused both the sharing and the positive emotion. It is also

possible that happy people are more prone than others to share. Hence these data con-

stitute only a first step. The following studies used experimental designs in order to

ascertain whether sharing positive experiences specifically causes positive emotion.

Study 2

The objective of Study 2 was to experimentally test the relationship between sharing

positive experiences and positive affect. Our hypothesis was that the participants who

shared their positive event would have more positive affect as opposed to those who

simply thought and wrote about the same type of experience.

Method

Participants

In an introductory course on families and the lifespan, 96 participants (69 women)

participated in exchange for extra credit. Participant ages ranged from 18 to 24 with a

median age of 19. Participants came to the lab with either a romantic partner or with a

close friend. The study results were not moderated by relationship status.

Measures

Positive and Negative Affect Scale

We again used the Positive affect items from the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988). The

alpha for the current sample was .91.

Positivity of the recalled event

To ensure that the positivity of the recalled event was not driving the findings, we

included two items that were averaged together: ‘‘How positive was the event?’’ and

‘‘How memorable was this?’’. The items correlated at r ¼ .67. These items were then controlled for in the analysis.

Procedure

All participants were instructed to ‘‘Think of something good that happened to you in the

past two weeks. Please write a paragraph describing what happened in the space below.’’

They were then assigned randomly to either a no treatment condition or a sharing

experience condition. Those in the sharing condition were taken into a separate room and

were asked to recall the positive thing that they wrote about in the survey and to share it

30 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

with their partner. Specifically, the participants were instructed to ‘‘Begin by taking

about two minutes to share with your partner what happened and how you felt. Once

you have had a chance to share, please ring the bell.’’ Control participants skipped the

sharing step but engaged in the writing task in a separate room from their partner, just

as the experimental participants did. All participants then rated their mood and were

debriefed and dismissed.

Results

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) confirmed that participants in the sharing positive

experiences condition reported higher positive affect scores (M ¼ 32.70, SD ¼ 7.55) than those in the positive experience writing condition (M ¼ 30.13, SD ¼ 9.39, F(1, 91) ¼ 4.26, p < .05, �2p ¼ .02), after controlling for the positivity of the event and gender.

Discussion

Consistent with our hypotheses, sharing a positive experience caused an increase in

positive emotion, relative to a control group who also recalled the positive experience

but did not share it with someone. The study demonstrates that sharing positive news

caused more positive emotion than simply thinking about the positive news. However,

one limitation of this study was that more time was spent focusing on a positive event

and this, rather than the sharing, may be responsible for the observed effect. Further-

more, without pretest of positive affect, it is difficult to know whether participants in the

sharing condition were happier to begin with. This limitation is addressed in Study 4.

Also, it could be that simply interacting with someone else, rather than the sharing per se,

may be driving the effect. Study 3 addresses the latter concern.

Study 3

Study 2 showed that sharing positive experiences caused more positive emotion than

merely thinking about the positive experiences. Study 3 undertook to differentiate

whether benefits came from social interaction per se or specifically from sharing one’s

memory of a positive experience. Therefore, Study 3 compared the effects of telling a

positive experience to someone with a different kind of neutral interaction, namely

talking to a partner about something the participant learned in class.

Method

Participants. In an introductory course on families and the lifespan, 184 participants (131 women) completed the survey for extra credit. Participants attended the lab session with

either a romantic partner or with a close friend. Relationship status did not moderate the

results.

Measures completed following the manipulation Happiness. We measured happiness with a single item, ‘‘I consider myself:’’ on a scale

from ‘‘Not a very happy person’’ to ‘‘A very happy person.’’

Lambert et al. 31

Irritability. Given that this interaction occurred at the end of a long session of data collection (including measures unrelated to the current study), we controlled for

irritability to ensure that it was not driving the results. We measured irritability with

the single item, ‘‘Describe the extent you feel irritable’’ on a scale from ‘‘Very Slightly

or Not at All’’ to ‘‘Extremely.’’ The mean level of irritability was 1.81, with a standard

deviation of .97.

Procedure. Participants were again asked to ‘‘Please think of something good that hap- pened to you in the past two weeks. Please write a paragraph describing what happened.’’

They were then assigned randomly to either a sharing positive experience condition or to

a neutral interaction condition.

Sharing of positive experience condition. As before, these participants were taken into a separate room and were asked to recall the positive thing they wrote about in the survey

and share it with their partner. Specifically, the class participant was instructed to ‘‘Begin

by taking about two minutes to share with your partner what happened and how you felt.

Once you have had a chance to share, please ring the bell.’’

Neutral interaction control condition. To ensure that the results were not driven by simply having an interaction with their partner, we included a neutral sharing condition. Those

in this neutral sharing control condition were given the following instructions: ‘‘Take

about two minutes to share with your partner something you learned in class this week,

then please ring the bell.’’

Results

One-way ANCOVA revealed that participants in the sharing positive experiences condi-

tion reported higher levels of happiness (M ¼ 5.88, SD ¼ 1.05) than those in the neutral interaction condition (M ¼ 5.46, SD ¼ 1.01, F(1, 180) ¼ 3.95, p ¼ .05, �2p ¼ .04) when controlling for feelings of irritation, gender, and age.

Discussion

Study 3 provided further evidence that sharing good experiences causes positive emo-

tion, even though the effect size was small. Nonetheless, people felt better when the

interaction involved telling the partner about the pleasant experience than when it

involved discussing something learned in class. Thus, the emotional benefits of sharing a

pleasant personal experience are above and beyond the benefits of recalling the expe-

rience and of interacting pleasantly with someone.

Study 4

The objective of the current study was to address some of the limitations of the prior

studies and to determine whether sharing grateful experiences multiple times would

create an accumulation of feelings of well-being and vitality above and beyond the effect

of simply writing and thinking about grateful experiences or having neutral interactions

32 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

with a partner. We selected grateful experiences as the focus of sharing in order to exert a

greater level of experimental control and to diminish the variability in what types of

experiences were shared. We proposed that the participants who share grateful events

will have higher levels of well-being and vitality than those in control conditions.

Method

Participants. Initially, 158 participants in an introductory course on families and the lifespan began the study for extra credit. Of them, 137 participants (117 women) completed a daily

task in which they wrote about grateful experiences and then shared them with their partner

twice a week. Participants also completed dependent variables in the lab at both time points.

Participants (age range, 17–31; median age¼20) reported about either a relationship with a romantic partner or with a close friend. There were no significant differences in the

dependent variables based on relationship status, so they were combined for all analyses.

Measures Happiness. Happiness was assessed with the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS,

Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999; a ¼ .85). Participants reported how happy they were on four items, such that ‘‘1’’ represents not being a very happy person and ‘‘7’’ indicates

being a very happy person. Coefficient alphas were .89 at Time 1 and .91 at Time 2.

Satisfaction with Life. Satisfaction with Life was measured using the well-validated Satisfaction with Life scale (Diener et al., 1985). This measure comprises five items

(e.g., ‘‘In most ways my life is close to ideal,’’ ‘‘If I could live my life over again, I would

change nothing.’’). Coefficient alphas were .86 at Time 1 and 89 at Time 2.

Positive Affect Scale. Positive affect was measured using the Positive dimension of the PANAS, a widely used measure of positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988).

The alphas were .87 at Time 1 and .88 at Time 2.

Vitality. We used Ryan and Frederick’s (1997) seven-item scale to measure vitality. Sample items include "I feel alive and vital,’’ ‘‘I look forward to each new day,’’ and ‘‘I

feel energized’’. Items were rated using a seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ ‘‘Strongly dis- agree’’ and 7 ¼ ‘‘Strongly agree’’). Coefficient alphas were .90 at Time 1 and .89 at Time 2.

Procedure. All participants completed measures at Time 1, were then assigned randomly to a condition and completed a four-week daily journal assignment, and then completed

follow-up measures at Time 2. The three conditions were as follows.

Sharing grateful experience condition. These participants were instructed to keep a grateful experiences journal for four weeks. Each evening they were to spend five

minutes thinking and writing about what they were grateful for and why. Twice a week

they completed a survey and entered what they had written into an online source. For

instance, participants could write about their gratitude for a particular opportunity they

had experienced in their life. Furthermore, they were instructed ‘‘Sometime during the

Lambert et al. 33

next three days you will also need to share your grateful experience with the person you

brought with you to the first lab session. The point is to SHARE the grateful experience

you have been writing about with this person at least twice a week.’’

Grateful experience thought condition. To ensure that there was something unique about sharing grateful experiences, rather than simply thinking about them, we included this

grateful experience thought control. The participants in this control condition kept the

daily grateful experiences journal just as the prior, experimental condition; however, this

group was not required to share their grateful experiences.

Neutral interaction condition. To ensure that any increase in positive affect was not simply due to having regular interaction with one’s partner, those assigned to this

condition were instructed to keep a daily journal of the things they were learning in their

classes and to share this with their partner twice a week.

Results

Attrition. Twenty-one participants who completed all measures at Time 1 had dropped out by Time 2. All but three of the participants who failed to complete Time 2 measures

dropped out right after completing the baseline measures, indicating that trouble in com-

pleting their assigned activity was not likely the reason for dropping out of the study.

However, to ensure that any differential attrition by condition did not bias results, we

compared those who dropped out by condition on all dependent variables. There were

no significant differences by condition on Time 1 positive affect (F(2, 155) ¼ .69, p > .05), happiness (F(2, 155) ¼ .05, p > .05), life satisfaction (F(2, 155) ¼ .72, p > .05), or T1 vitality (F(2, 155) ¼ .97, p > .05). Nor were there any differences between those who persisted and those who dropped out of the study on Time 1 positive affect

levels (F(1, 152) ¼ .14, p > .05), Time 1 happiness (F(2, 153) ¼ 1.53, p > .05), Time 1 life satisfaction (F(2,133) ¼ 3.01, p > .05), or T1 vitality (F (1, 251) ¼ .49, p > .05). Thus, attrition does not appear to be an alternative explanation for our findings.

Effect of sharing grateful experiences Positive affect. Positive affect was analyzed usingANCOVA in which Time 1 positive

affect and gender served as covariates. This analysis revealed a marginally significant

main effect for condition (F(2, 120) ¼ 2.58, p ¼ .08). Planned comparisons revealed that those in the share condition reported higher positive affect (M ¼ 29.30, SD ¼ 8.68) than both those in the positive thought condition (M ¼ 25.86, SD ¼ 9.35, F(1, 126) ¼ 3.54, p ¼ .06, d ¼ .38) and the neutral interaction condition (M ¼ 25.65, SD ¼ 10.22, F(1, 126) ¼ 4.24, p < .04, d ¼ .38), controlling for Time 1 positive affect and gender. No other contrasts were statistically significant.

Happiness. ANCOVA revealed a significant main effect by condition (F(2, 124) ¼ 3.94, p < .05). Planned comparisons revealed higher levels of happiness among those in the share condition (M ¼ 5.78, SD ¼ 1.10) than among those in both the positive thought condition (M ¼ 5.45, SD ¼ 1.07, F(1, 124) ¼ 4.14, p < .05, d ¼ .30) and the neutral interaction condition (M ¼ 5.36, SD ¼ 1.29, F(1, 124) ¼ 7.30, p < .01, d ¼ .35),

34 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

controlling for Time 1 happiness and gender. No other contrasts were statistically

significant.

Life satisfaction. Results revealed a significant main effect by condition (F(2, 125)¼3.01, p < .01). Planned comparisons revealed higher levels of life satisfaction among those in the

share condition (M ¼ 5.30, SD ¼ 1.18) than among those in the grateful thought con- dition (M ¼ 4.84, SD ¼ 1.25, F(1, 125) ¼ 4.75, p ¼.03, d ¼ .38) and the neutral inter- action condition (M ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 1.39, F(1, 125) ¼ 5.65, p < .05, d ¼ .48), controlling Time 1 life satisfaction and gender. No other contrasts were statistically significant.

Vitality. Results revealed a significant main effect by condition (F(2, 124) ¼ 7.39, p < .01). Planned comparisons revealed higher levels of vitality among those in the share

condition (M ¼ 5.17, SD ¼.99) than among those in the neutral interaction condition (M ¼ 4.42, SD ¼ 1.23, F(1, 124) ¼ 14.66, p <.01, d ¼ .67) and the grateful experience thought condition (M ¼ 4.71, SD ¼ 1.09, F(1, 124) ¼ 5.36 p < .05, d ¼ .44). No other contrasts were statistically significant.

Discussion

Consistent with our hypothesis, participants who had shared their grateful experiences

with a partner reported significantly more satisfaction with life, more happiness, and

more vitality than participants in either control condition. This indicates that there are

salutary benefits unique to sharing one’s grateful experiences with another person as

opposed to simply writing them or having a neutral interaction.

Two aspects of the current study advance the literature. Firstly, the benefits of

telling others about one’s grateful experiences extend beyond the transient emotional

pleasure that accompanies the telling. The current study showed that these benefits

extended to existential implications, such as finding life more satisfying. Secondly, the

results appeared to endure and possibly accumulate. For some participants, 2–3 days

may have elapsed from the final sharing until the time they completed follow-up mea-

sures, indicating that the effects of the sharing on happiness and life satisfaction were

not fleeting. Furthermore, the participants in the control conditions were not specifi-

cally instructed to refrain from sharing their grateful experiences with their relation-

ship partners. As a result, they may have naturally shared grateful experiences with

their partner during this time period, making the significant effects found all that much

more difficult to obtain and therefore more noteworthy.

Study 5

To this point we have exclusively examined the effect of sharing positive experiences

with a relationship partner without taking into account the response of the relationship

partner. Individuals may turn to others to validate the positivity of their good news and

the reaction of this relationship partner should be influential in the amount of positive

emotion the individual experiences in reaction to his/her positive event. The objective of

the current study is to examine how the reaction of a relationship partner will affect the

experience of positive emotion. Past research indicates that enthusiastic support is the

Lambert et al. 35

most effective response to hearing about the good news of someone else and has been

called an ‘‘active-constructive’’ response. This type of response has been found to be

positively correlated with intimacy, commitment, satisfaction, and trust (Gable, et al.,

2004). Less effective responses include quashing the event ‘‘active-destructive,’’

ignoring the event ‘‘passive-destructive’’ or giving understated, minimal support ‘‘pas-

sive-constructive.’’ These responses have been related to undesirable relationship out-

comes (Gable et al., 2004). Conversely active-destructive (‘‘quashing the event’’) and

passive-destructive (‘‘ignoring the event’’) responses and also passive-constructive

(‘‘quiet, understated support’’) responses have been related to negative relationship out-

comes. We predict that active-constructive responses by the relationship partner will

have a stronger effect on the amount of positive emotion experienced following a pos-

itive event than all the other types of responses.

Method

Participants. One hundred and six student participants (56 female) completed the study in exchange for US $30. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25, with the median age of

21; they attended the lab session with their romantic partner.

Procedure. Participants were told that the study was investigating how people perform on tasks in the presence or absence of their partner. They had been assigned to the alone

condition but could email each other during the tasks (to simulate real-life interactions).

The couples were then separated into different rooms and completed a packet of ques-

tionnaires unrelated to the current study. Both members of the couple then completed

a mental skills task called ‘‘Desert Survival.’’ They had to rank the importance of 15

items to survival in the desert. They were told that the correct answers, and therefore

their own scores, were based on expert opinions. This score would then be compared

to an average non-expert person’s score to give a percentile ranking of the participant’s

success. To minimize any direct competition, it was emphasized that their partner

would be doing a different task (i.e., they did not realize that everyone performed the

same Desert Survival task).

When the task was complete, the experimenter took their responses and left to

‘‘calculate the results.’’ Upon returning the experimenter said, ‘‘Congratulations! You did extremely well on your test! You got in the top 10%! Hardly anyone gets that high of a score. I was so impressed when I saw the results that I told your partner how well you

did. I hope you don’t mind.’’

The participant was then shown the lab email program and told: ‘‘I saw your boy-

friend/girlfriend email you something when I told him/her your score, so it might be here

already.’’ Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of the following four

emails ostensibly from their partner and were left alone to read the email and respond if

they wished. These emails were extensively pilot tested for style, punctuation, etc. to

increase the likelihood they would be perceived as authentic by participants.

Active constructive (N ¼ 30): Great job!!!! i heard you got in the top 10% i’m so proud of you. the girl told me your task is a good measure of (logic skills?) and it sounds like its pretty

36 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

hard to do as well as you did bet you’ll do just as well on your next one!!!

Active destructive (N ¼ 25): i heard you got in the top 10%. the girl told me about your task but it doesn’t sound that hard to me. i wonder how I did

Passive constructive (N ¼ 25): the girl told me your score. ¼)

Passive destructive (N ¼ 26): the girl told me your score.

Participants were left alone with this email program and were given time to respond. The

primary dependent variable for this study is the reaction expressed in these email

responses. The experimenter returned five minutes later, gave participants some addi-

tional questionnaires unrelated to this study, probed for suspicion, and then reunited,

debriefed, and paid the couples.

Measures Coding of emails. Because research shows that felt emotion is expressed in writing

(Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003), the participant’s email responses to their

partner were coded for instances of the positive feelings of love (e.g., ‘‘love you.’’),

appreciation (e.g., ‘‘Thanks babycakes’’), and happiness (e.g., ‘‘Booyow!! Guess i’m a good person to be stranded with, huh?? Good luck over there Chipmunk’’). Two inde-

pendent coders blind to the participant’s condition coded each email. Where disagree-

ments between coders were noted, a third independent coder would rate the statement.

These disagreements often stemmed from a couple’s internal jargon and how to

objectively determine the meaning behind them. For example, one member of a couple

replied as follows: ‘‘Yeah, I am so smart, ###-R-T, I mean ###-A-R-T.’’ Coding items

were created with simplicity in order to emphasize their face validity (e.g., ‘‘Did they

feel appreciation for their partner’s response?’’ using a yes/no scale). Weighted kappa

coefficients (Cohen, 1968) were used to determine inter-rater reliability for the three pos-

itive emotions, including love (�w ¼ .49), appreciation (�w ¼ .33), and happiness (�w ¼ .47). The positive emotion scores were combined to create a ‘‘positive emotions’’ composite with a reliability a ¼ .74

Results and discussion

During the joint debriefing at the end of the study, at least one member of 13 couples

expressed suspicion; these couples were removed from the sample, leaving 42 couples

(n ¼ 84) in the analysis (please note that in two instances, both members of the couple expressed suspicion). Five participants did not send email responses; however, these same

five participants were excluded for expressing suspicion during the debriefing. The

number of suspicious couples did not significantly differ across experimental condition

and the remaining sample sizes were as follows across condition: active-constructive¼ 22, active-deconstructive ¼ 20, passive-constructive ¼ 20, passive-deconstructive ¼ 22. Seventeen participants in the active-constructive condition, three in the active-

destructive condition, nine in the passive-constructive condition, and thirteen in the

Lambert et al. 37

passive-destructive condition expressed a positive email response. Because previous work

has found that active-constructive responses (as opposed to the other types of responses)

from a partner related to higher well-being and higher relationship satisfaction (e.g., Gable

et al., 2004), the analyses focused on comparisons between the active-constructive condi-

tion versus all other conditions. The data provided by partners violated the assumption of

independence. The data set was hierarchically nested, with persons nested within couples.

Multilevel modeling in the HLM computer program was used to examine the hypothesis

that an active-constructive response would be associated with expressions of more positive

emotion. To test this hypothesis, we entered active-constructive response (versus the other

three responses) as a Level 1 predictor of positive emotions. The Level 1 equation predicts

the individual’s presence of being in the active-constructive condition for a given couple.

The significance test in HLM used robust standard errors. Below is the HLM equation used

for this analysis:

Level 1 model

Positive Emotions ¼ P0 þ P1*(ACTCON) þ E Level 2 model

P0 ¼ B00 þ R0 P1 ¼ B10

We found that participants in the active-constructive condition expressed more

positive emotions as compared to the other three conditions (unstandardized HLM coef-

ficient ¼ 1.27, t (77) ¼ 5.44, p < .001). For this model, �2 is .05 and �2 is .94. Thus, when given active and constructive feedback, participants responded with more love, apprecia-

tion, and happiness. Perceiving partner responsiveness caused an increase in their expe-

rience of positive emotions, as rated by coders that were blind to the study hypotheses.

This final study demonstrates that how the relationship partner responds to the shared

experience of the participant plays an important role in the positive emotion experienced.

In fact, the results of the current study indicate that for those whose partners did not pro-

vide an active-constructive response, the positive emotion experienced was less than half

as large as the positive emotion of the participants whose partners did respond with

enthusiastic support. Thus, response of the relationship partner matters.

General Discussion

In a series of five studies we sought to test how sharing a positive experience with a

relationship partner might increase an individual’s happiness and positive affect. In

Study 1, we found that people’s tendency to share their positive experiences with

someone else at Time 1 predicted their later positive affect and life satisfaction,

after controlling for baseline levels of affect and life satisfaction. Furthermore,

Study 1’s diary data showed that positive affect and life satisfaction were higher on

days during which they told a partner about a positive experience than on other

days. In Study 2, all participants were instructed to write about something good that

happened to them in the past two weeks and to share or not share. Those participants

who shared their positive event reported higher positive affect than those who

simply wrote about their positive event.

38 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

Study 3 was designed to rule out the alternative explanation that the congenial

interaction with a partner, rather than specifically sharing the positive experiences, was

what provided a lift in mood. This time we again instructed all participants to write about

something good that happened to them in the past two weeks and then we randomly

assigned participants to either share their positive event with their relationship partner or

to discuss something that they had recently learned with their relationship partner, after

which they reported their happiness level. Participants who shared their positive event

with a partner reported themselves as being happier than did control participants.

In Study 4 we wanted to test whether regular sharing of positive experiences would

lead to gains in happiness, positive affect, and life satisfaction over the course of four

weeks, using a journaling technique. Participants completed baseline measures of

vitality, satisfaction with life, happiness, and positive affect, and were then assigned to

one of two conditions: a gratitude sharing condition or a sharing of learning. Participants

in the grateful experiences sharing condition were instructed to write about some of their

grateful experiences and then share them with a partner at least twice a week and write

about their experience in an online journal twice a week for four weeks.

To ensure that any post-test differences were not due simply to thinking about positive

experiences, one set of control participants were assigned to write on these same grati-

tude topics twice a week for four weeks, but were not required to share their thoughts or

experiences with a relationship partner. In addition, to ensure that simply having a reg-

ular, positive interaction with a relationship partner was not driving the proposed study

effects, another set of control participants were instructed to write about things that they

were learning in a class, share this knowledge with a partner twice a week, and report

about it in an online journal twice a week for four weeks.

Upon the conclusion of the four weeks, all participants completed follow-up measures

of satisfaction with life, happiness, and positive affect. Consistent with study hypotheses,

participants who had shared their positive gratitude experiences with a partner reported

significantly more satisfaction with life, happiness, and positive affect than participants

in either control condition. This consistent pattern of results across five studies indicates

that there is something unique about not just dwelling on, but sharing with another per-

son one’s positive experiences on positive emotion, including happiness, positive affect,

life satisfaction, and vitality.

Thus, Studies 1–4 accomplished our first three objectives by demonstrating that (1) a

causal relationship exists between sharing positive experiences and positive mood, (2) boosts

in mood are not due to simply savoring the experience by thinking and writing about them,

and (3) nor are such increases due to merely having a positive interaction with a partner.

Lastly, Study 5 examined how the response of the relationship partner would impact

the positive emotion experienced by the participant. We manipulated the ostensible

response of the relationship partner and found that participants randomly assigned to

receive an active-constructive response experienced far greater positive emotion than

control participants. This finding accomplished our final objective, which was to demon-

strate that the reaction of the relationship partner acts as an amplifier of the experience.

Thus, sharing alone is not enough to fully experience a boost of positive emotion.

Instead, for a boost to positive emotion to be fully experienced the relationship partner

must provide an active-constructive response.

Lambert et al. 39

Reasons why sharing and receiving an enthusiastic response may enhance positive emotion

There are several potential reasons for why sharing a positive experience should boost

positive emotion that should be tested by future research. If positive events are more

easily accessible in the memory, they may plausibly be able to continue to have influence

on later positive affect and coping. The event itself creates one memory trace, but each

time one discusses it with another person, another memory trace is created, and so the

more often one discusses it with others, the more accessible the original event may

become in memory. It may also gain further associative ties as the person records other

people’s knowledge about it and it gets embellished by their reactions.

In Study 4, having greater access to a cognitive storehouse of such events likely

impacted participants’ self-report of vitality, positive affect, happiness, and life satisfac-

tion, inasmuch as individuals reflect on recent past experiences to discern their current

affective state. It seems likely that having a better short-term recollection of shared positive

experiences would have an effect on self-reported positive emotion. Otherwise stated, peo-

ple drew on a reservoir of positive events readily accessible to memory when they were

asked about their current affective state. However, writing may also be instrumental in

increasing the cognitive accessibility of the event in one’s memory. Thus, why is sharing

the experience with someone else unique from writing (as we found)?

We suggest that there will be pleasure based on entering the experience into the shared

history with the listener. In an important sense, telling the partner about the event may

increase the event’s social reality (e.g., Gollwitzer, 1986) in the sense that events and their

implications gain validation when members of a group agree on them (as compared to being

held privately in memory). Prior work has found that sharing a positive event is correlated

with heightened memory of that particular event (Gable et al., 2004), and we suggest this is

likely due in part to the enhanced social reality of sharing it with someone else.

Absent of the sympathetic reaction of an interested individual, sharing is not necessarily

likely to boost positive mood. The sympathetic listener can validate the experience. For

instance, if Sally shares her good news of getting a high grade on a final exam with Jim and

Jim replies, ‘‘That’s great! That should help you get that scholarship you’ve been hoping for,’’ Jim’s acknowledgement of the potential positive implications of the event for Sally’s

future makes the impact of her positive experience more salient and may generate additional

positive implications of the event about which she had not previously thought. Testing

whether sharing may increase an event’s social reality could be a fruitful future study.

Furthermore, we suggest that perhaps sharing something positive has the potential to

boost the mood of the listener and thus the person sharing may take pleasure in making

someone else feel good, giving the sharer a subsequent lift in mood. For example, if

Steve tells his wife Cindy about praise he got from his boss at work, this may have

implications for Cindy and would likely make her genuinely happy. Seeing her pleasure

is likely not only to make Steve feel good as he re-experiences the praise from his boss,

but Steve likely also experiences an added dose of joy for making Cindy excited. This

possibility could be examined by future research.

In addition, given that perceiving others are pleased with you is likely to boost self-

esteem (e.g., Beach & Tesser, 1995; Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988), feeling better about

40 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

the self is another possible explanation for why secondary appraisals inherent in sharing

positive events increases positive affective state. Having others respond affirmatively to

one’s positive experience could facilitate perceiving oneself positively in the eyes of oth-

ers, known as positive reflected appraisals (Baumeister, 1998; Leary & Baumeister, 2000).

In fact, one study found that sharing positive events was significantly correlated with pride

(Gable et al., 2004). Thus, feeling better about oneself after having shared the positive

event may be responsible for the uptick in positive affect that we noted in our studies. This

possibility should be tested by future studies.

Upward spirals of broadening and building

Could sharing positive experiences result in an upward spiral result from a repetition of

broadening and building? There is a growing body of evidence supporting this building

process. In fact, one recent study demonstrated an upward spiral over a two-month period

in which positive affect, broad-minded coping, interpersonal trust, and social support reci-

procally and prospectively predicted one another. This upward spiral was partially based in

changes in dopaminergic functioning (Burns et al., 2008). Another study found that initial

positive affect predicted broad-minded coping and that positive affect and broad-minded

coping serially enhanced one another over time (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2008). Thus, it

appears that these upward spirals based on positive emotion do occur and sharing positive

experiences may enhance the likelihood of these upward spirals from occurring.

Limitations and future directions

One obvious limitation of this study is that the sample was limited to college-aged rela-

tionships and may not be representative of more mature relationships or even relation-

ships in the general population. Insofar as theorists expect the impact of sharing with

relationship partners to differ across age and culture, they may wish to conduct replica-

tions of this work with differently constituted samples. It would also be interesting to

examine whether these results would apply to family relationships.

Our findings indicate that sharing and receiving an enthusiastic, supportive response

increases positive emotion. But what about those who refrain from sharing their positive

experiences with relationship partners? Future research should more closely examine

what personality characteristics or situational factors may facilitate or impede sharing

their positive experiences. Similarly, additional research is needed to clarify what per-

sonal or relationship factors influence the response of the partner.

Some research indicates that participants’ expression of a positive event actually

created a ‘‘crossover effect,’’ such that it increased the positive affect of the partner in

addition to that of the participant (Hicks & Diamond, 2008). Perhaps there may be an

effect of sharing positive experiences on the positive emotion of one’s partner and this

could be fruitfully examined by future research.

In an era where technology is prevalent, there are now many different outlets for people

to share their positive experiences. Blogging has grown to become one of the most popular

methods of online expression. Although blogging has many uses, most Americans use their

blogs to express themselves or reflect on their day (Lenhart & Fox, 2006). A fruitful area

for future research would be to examine whether sharing positive events through blogging

Lambert et al. 41

has a similar effect on positive emotion outcomes as in-person sharing or what differences

might exist between sharing through the blogosphere and in-person sharing. Some initial

research on blogging has found it to have positive effects on well-being and it has even

been suggested as a form of therapy. For example, one particular study demonstrated that

blogging improves social capital, which in turn has a positive effect on positive emotion

(Ko & Kuo, 2009). Relatedly, another study found that blogging has a positive effect on

perceived social support, specifically social integration, reliable alliance, and friendship

satisfaction (Baker & Moore, 2008). Future research should build upon these initial find-

ings, taking the results of the current study into account.

Conclusion

Our research suggests that the sharing of positive life events had a greater impact in terms of

positive emotion benefits than writing or having a neutral interaction. Positive emotion, such

as happiness and life satisfaction, reach a peak only when participants share their positive

experiences and when the relationship partner provides an active-constructive response.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.

References

Baker, J. R., & Moore, S. M. (2008). Blogging as a social tool: A psychosocial examination of the

effects of blogging. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11, 747-749.

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of

social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680-740). New York: Random House.

Beach, S. R. H., & Tesser, A. (1995). Self-esteem and the extended self-evaluation maintenance

model: The self in social context. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp.

145-170). New York: Plenum Press.

Burns, A. B., Brown, J. S., Sachs-Ericsson, N., Plant, A., Curtis, J. T., Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner,

T. E. (2008). Upward spirals of positive emotion and coping: Replication, extension, and initial

exploration of neurochemical substrates. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 360-370.

Burton, C. M., & King, L. A. (2004). The health benefits of writing about intensely positive experi-

ences. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 150-163.

Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagree-

ment or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213-220.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, Me.E. (2003). Counting blessing versus burdens: An experimental

investigation of gratitude and positive emotion in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 377-389.

Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-Modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the

same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological methods, 14, 43-53.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2008). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional

well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172-175.

42 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(1)

Gable, S. & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychol-

ogy, 9, 103-110.

Gable, S., Reis, H., Impett, E., & Asher, E. (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.

Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right?

Social support for positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904-917.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1986). Striving for specific identities: The social reality of self-symbolizing. In

R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 143-159). New York: Springer.

Hicks, A. M., & Diamond, L. M. (2008). How was your day? Couples’ affect when telling and

hearing daily events. Personal Relationships, 15, 205-228.

Ko, H., & Kuo, F. (2009). Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure?

Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 12, 75-79.

Koo, M., Algoe, S., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). It’s a wonderful life: Mentally subtract-

ing positive events improves people’s affective states, contrary to their affective forecasts.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1217-1224.

Lambert, N. M., Gwinn, A. M., Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. (2011). Feeling tired?: How shar-

ing positive experiences can boost energy levels. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1, 307-314.

Langston, C. A. (1994). Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: Expressive responses to

positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1112-1125.

Leary, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2006). Bloggers: A portrait of the internet’s new storytellers. Pew Internet

& American Life Project.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability

and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.

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.

Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural lan-

guage use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577.

Reis, H. T., Smith, S. M., Carmichael, C. L., Caprariello, P. A., Tsai, F. F., Rodrigues, A., & Man-

iaci, M. R. (2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides per-

sonal and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 311-329.

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a

dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-565.

Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and

reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 49-61.

Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (1998). A time-series diary study of mood and social interaction.

Motivation and Emotion, 22, 255-275.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 54, 1063-1070.

Lambert et al. 43