Reciprocity of Prosocial Behavior and Happiness

How important is social belonging? Previous research revealed that social belonging is an essential component for humans, similar to basic needs such as food and water (Gazzaniga, 2018). Evolutionary speaking, people who did not belong were for example excluded from their group and were less likely to survive or reproduce. Though, this is also applicable to today’s world. People that are socially isolated generally have a harder time than people who are not. Therefore prosocial behavior is an important tool in human nature to secure group belonging. But what gratification does prosocial behavior give us in our lives and what drives us to maintain it? To understand this, multiple researchers conducted studies on the reciprocity between prosocial behavior and happiness. In this literature review I will describe and compare three of those studies and analyze their results.

The first article of interest investigates the interaction between spending money on others and happiness (Dunn, Aknin & Norton, 2008). Prosocial behavior is in this case represented by spending money on others. The researchers expected that spending money on others results in greater happiness than spending money on yourself. A sample of 632 Americans was asked to rate their general happiness, how much money they earned per year and how much of that money they spend on either themselves (e.g. bills or personal treats) or on others (e.g. gifts or charity) per month. Independent of the size of income, participants that reported more prosocial spending were experiencing greater happiness. Too further strengthen these findings researchers conducted an experiment in which 16 employees received a bonus at work. Happiness levels of participants were measured one month prior to the raise and six to eight weeks after the raise. Again, they were asked to report how much money of this bonus they spent on themselves and how much they spent on others. Results found that happiness was unrelated to the size of the bonus and “revealed that prosocial spending was the only significant predictor of happiness” (Dunn, Aknin & Norton, 2008). These findings were also supported by another experimental design. 46 participants received 5$ or 20$ in the morning and were ordered to either spend the money on themselves or on others. Results showed that participants instructed to spend the money on others experienced greater happiness than the other group. Additionally the amount of money (5$ or 20$) did not affect results. As the final research shows this is contrary to public belief. Of 109 college students 69 expected greater happiness when spending money on themselves rather than on others.

Even more unexpected are results on the perception of significance of the amount of money. 94 of 109 students predicted that receiving 20 dollars instead of 5 dollars results in greater happiness. These results indicate a public misconception and should encourage psychologists to inform people about the superiority of prosocial spending. However, it is important to note that the sample sizes of both experimental designs are very small (n=16 and n=46). To support the hypothesis with greater confidence future studies should expand sample sizes.

The next article is a follow-up study of the first article and investigates the importance of the quality of the social relationship (Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn & Norton, 2011). The study questions to what extent the strength of social ties influences happiness when engaging in prosocial behavior. Expected outcomes are that prosocial behavior towards individuals you are socially stronger connected to (e.g. close friends, family) generates greater happiness than prosocial behavior towards a weaker social tie (e.g. a colleague). It also refers to studies interpreting the reciprocity between prosocial behavior and happiness as an evolutionary adaptive function. Eighty individuals (68% female) with an average age of 22 were assigned to two different groups. The first group was asked to report their latest financial spending greater than twenty dollars on a person they feel strongly connected to. The second group was assigned to think about the last time they spent twenty dollars on a person they feel a weak social connection to. The results support the hypothesis and found that happiness increases more when thinking about spending money on strong social ties rather than weak social ties. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there is no measured baseline condition of happiness. The participants were not asked about their level of happiness before recalling an event. This means there are no indicators how much happiness increased when thinking about a prosocial event. Results are only comparable to each other, but not the baseline happiness level. Additionally, the study does not include an experimental methodology since the individuals did not actively engage in prosocial behavior. Finally, the study refers to possible areas of future research such as why engaging in prosocial behavior directed towards strong social ties leads to greater happiness and how long such increases in happiness last.

The final article analyzes the bidirectional interaction between prosocial behavior and positive affect in daily life (Snippe et al., 2018). The article is an extension of previous research since it looks at the relationship from two ways whereas the previous studies were analyzing the interaction in a unidirectional way. Also, previous studies measured prosocial behavior exclusively by money spending. In this study prosocial behavior is denoted by “Since the last measurement I was able to make a difference to someone” (Snippe et al., 2018). The measurement of happiness is represented by positive affect (PA). Furthermore, the study takes personality traits (Neuroticism and Extraversion) into account and observes how these traits may influence the relationship. High neuroticism is expected to lower a positive affect following prosocial behavior. Generally, researchers expected personality congruent behavior to have greater effects on happiness than personality incongruent behavior. One of the main hypothesis is the mood-maintenance theory, which suggests that prosocial behavior and positive affect reinforce each other. Likewise as in previous articles the reciprocity between prosocial behavior and positive affect is referred to as a possible evolutionary adaptive function.

The experiment involved 629 Dutch individuals who took part in an online diary study. Before the study participants were asked to report their current state of mental health. The average age was 41 and the majority of participants were female (82%) in a romantic relationship (71%) and highly educated (83%). Over the course of 30 days participants rated their feelings, behavior, cognitions and activities ideally three times a day, for a total of 90 measurements. On average 45 assessments were completed. The experiment found a bidirectional interaction between prosocial behavior and positive affect (PA) and the results were concordant with the theory of mood-maintenance. Higher test results in neuroticism were also connected to greater PA after prosocial behavior. On the other hand, Extraversion was not found to influence the relationship. The hypothesis that trait congruent behaviors are more rewarding was not supported by the study. Still, it is important to note that due to the very selective sample, results may not be representative of the general Dutch population. As the researchers propose it would be interesting to examine the strength of reciprocity between prosocial behavior and PA and how this affects well-being in the long term.

Is there a significant reciprocity between prosocial behavior and happiness? The first two articles show clear results that spending money on others increases happiness by a greater level than spending money on oneself. Additionally the quality of the social relation the money is spent on is of great importance. Spending money on intimate social relationships results in greater happiness than spending money on less intimate relationships. Both of the articles focused on defining prosocial behavior exclusively as spending money on others. The final article has a more universal denotation of prosocial behavior. Beyond money spending it can be expressed through investment of time or by making someone feel better. Also, whereas the first two articles have either no or rather poor experimental design (small n) the final article has a convincing experimental design. On top of that the convenience sample design produces rich information. Like the first and second article this article finds evidence for the claim that prosocial behavior reinforces happiness.

Furthermore, the final study also finds a bidirectional interaction. This means that prosocial behavior reinforces happiness but so does happiness reinforce prosocial behavior. To conclude, the studies did find evidence that prosocial behavior reinforces happiness but this interaction also goes the other way. Future research might analyze this interaction further from an evolutionary point of view. There are already increasing numbers of theories that suggest prosocial behavior is an evolutionary adaptive function but it is not yet well established if happiness resulting from prosocial behavior could likewise be a produce of evolution. After all the relationship could just be another tool of evolution to increase chances of survival.