The Connection Between Prosocial Behavior and an Increase in Happiness

Past research has shown that feelings of happiness are associated with several health benefits like improved immune system functioning and increased life expectancy (Gazzaniga, 2018). This raises the question: How can this desirable state of mind be increased? A growing body of literature suggests that one potential enhancing factor might be prosocial behavior, defined as voluntary actions performed to benefit others (Snippe et al.,2017). Following this idea, this essay aims to examine the following question: Does prosocial behavior increase happiness? This question will be approached by evaluating the evidence provided by three authors, who direct their research at different aspects of the central question: While Snippe et. al (2017) examine the effect of general prosocial behavior on happiness, the other two authors focus on prosocial spending. Despite the converging evidence provided for a correlation between prosocial behavior and well-being, the studies all have limitations. Therefore I suggest that the topic needs some further investigation and to be backed up by additional evidence.

Building on past research that has shown the weak effect of income on happiness, Dunn, Aknin and Norton (2009) ask how people can use their income to increase happiness. They hypothesize that a specific implementation of prosocial behavior, namely spending money on other people, positively influences one’s perceived level of well-being (Dunn et al., 2009). In order to support their hypothesis, they present three differently designed studies. In a correlational study, using 632 Americans as their sample, they found happiness to be positively correlated with prosocial spending but not with personal spending, the latter defined as spending money on oneself. The association was still significant when controlling for income. This effect, however, was not replicated in their longitudinal study: Prosocial spending did not significantly predict happiness later in time when assessing the happiness of 16 employees before and after receiving a bonus. Aiming to establish the causal consequences of prosocial spending, the researchers also carried out an experimental study. 46 participants rated their happiness and were then randomly assigned to a personal or prosocial spending condition and then received a certain amount of money. Higher levels of happiness were encountered in participants who were told to use the money for altruistic purposes. Following these results, Dunn et al. (2009) suggest that people should be made aware of the benefits of investing income in others.

Due to the fact that the short report does not include detailed information about the studies, the reader is not able to reasonably evaluate the validity of the claim made. However, an online link is provided that contains further information. While both the correlational and the experimental study appear to have large and representative samples, the longitudinal study used a sample of only 16 employees (Dunn et al., 2009). The small sample size might be one reason for the study yielding a nonsignificant result, suggesting that it did not have enough statistical power. Overall, Dunn et al. (2009) found mixed evidence for the hypothesis and further studies were necessary to validate the premise.

Based upon their previous research, Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn and Norton (2011) published a new article expanding on prior findings. After summarizing the results of their former article, they shift the focus towards a new, more specific aspect of the topic: They ask whether the link between prosocial spending and happiness may be moderated by the intimacy of the relationship between the person who spends and the person who receives the money (Aknin et al., 2011). The authors distinguish between intimate relationships, referred to as strong ties and less intensive relationships, defined as weak ties. Thereupon, they hypothesize that spending money on strong ties leads to a higher level of happiness compared to investing in a weak tie. Having said that, they also acknowledge the possibility of happiness not being moderated by the strength of the tie.

In order to test their hypothesis, Aknin et al. (2011) conducted an experiment. The sample of 80 individuals was recruited by approaching individuals on the campus of a university. Participants were randomly assigned to call to mind the last time they spent money on either a weak or a strong tie. Subsequently, they reported their affect levels. Participants who remembered investing in a strong tie rather than a weak tie experienced greater levels of positive affect, even when taking the recency of the spending experience into account. In contrast, different types of relationship were found to have no influence on affect levels. According to Aknin et al. (2011), the findings imply that people should spend more money on those they share an intimate relationship with. Nevertheless, future research should investigate whether spending money on a weak tie could help converting it into a strong tie.

In opposition to Dunn et al. (2009), Aknin et al. (2011) do not specifically assess happiness, but affect levels and thus a broader state of mental well-being. However, since happiness is included in their measurements, their results can be seen as supportive of the central hypothesis that prosocial behavior increases happiness. Providing evidence for this claim by running an experiment enables the researchers to draw causal conclusions. Nevertheless, the internal validity should be called into question: Since the participants were asked to recall a prior spending experience rather than to engage in a new one, it is more difficult to rule out alternative explanations for the increased level of happiness. Another shortcoming is the external validity of the study, which is decreased by an unrepresentative convenience sample: The majority of the subjects are young females, probably mostly students from the university of British Columbia. Accordingly, one cannot exclude the possibility of the effect of prosocial spending being limited to this specific group of people.

The question at hand is also discussed by Snippe et al. (2017), who approach it by presenting a longitudinal study examining the association between prosocial behavior and positive affect (PA), while additionally taking the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism as potential moderators of the relationship into account. Over a period of 30 days, the prosocial behavior and PA of 553 participants was assessed with means of an electronic diary. Positive affect and prosocial behavior were measured in all participants, whereas personality scores were recorded for only 332 participants. The observers discovered a bidirectional association between prosocial behavior and PA, which was moderated by neuroticism but not significantly by extraversion. The effect of prosocial behavior on PA was larger for people high in neuroticism. On the contrary, the effect of PA on prosocial behavior was found to be moderated by neither extraversion nor neuroticism.

Unlike the previous researchers, Snippe et al. (2017) did not aim to examine the consequences of prosocial spending in particular, but of prosocial behavior in general. This gives the independent variable a broader frame and are therefore allows the researchers to make a more general claim. Another aspect that distinguishes this study from previous ones is that Snippe et al. (2017) provide the reader with diagrams and tables containing detailed information about the results. These illustrations make it easier for the reader to follow the reasoning of the authors. Moreover, the researchers carefully handle potential risks to construct validity by conducting a pilot study to test the validity of the single item measuring positive affect. Although they control for alternative explanations, the longitudinal design precludes causal conclusions. The internal validity might additionally be weakened by the fact that only 50% of the diary assessments were completed. This raises the question whether the participants were serious with completing the task and hence how confident the researchers can be about the results. Finally, the external validity of the study is weakened by the usage of a convenience sample that mainly includes highly educated young women that are in a romantic relationship. Consequently, it is arguable to which extent the results can be generalized to a larger population.

In conclusion, it can be said that the previously discussed studies provide largely coherent evidence for the hypothesis that prosocial behavior increases happiness. However, whereas Snippe et al. assume that the two variables are mutually reinforcing, the other authors infer a only one-sided relationship. Another difference consists in the fact that Dunn et al. (2009) merely conclude that prosocial spending enhances happiness, while the other authors further examine conditions under which this relationship holds true. More specifically, Aknin et al. (2011) state that the association is moderated by the intimacy of the relationship and Snippe et al. (2017) conclude that the strength of the effect depends on the level of neuroticism. These moderators should be replicated in future studies. Furthermore, due to the previously mentioned limitations of the studies, it is of huge importance to do more research on the topic to strengthen the body of evidence. Subsequent studies could try to account for the weaknesses of the studies, for example by using representative samples. In spite of all that, the studies already provide initial evidence that investing in others does indeed present a useful way to boost one’s happiness.