Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life
This is the experiment that started the field. Across three randomised studies, people asked to list what they were grateful for - weekly or daily - reported higher well-being than people asked to list hassles or neutral events, with the effect on positive affect proving the most reliable result.
The original counting-blessings experiment, and the reason gratitude journaling exists as a researched practice at all.
Emmons and McCullough randomly assigned participants to one of three conditions: list things you are grateful for, list hassles, or list neutral life events. Participants then kept weekly (Study 1) or daily (Study 2) records of mood, coping, health behaviours, physical symptoms and how they appraised their lives. A third study repeated the design with people living with neuromuscular disease.
The gratitude groups showed higher well-being across several - though, in the authors’ own words, not all - of the outcome measures.
The most robust single finding was the effect on positive affect. That is a narrower claim than the popular retelling, and it is the one worth carrying.
The design detail that still matters: the comparison was not gratitude versus nothing. It was gratitude versus deliberately attending to hassles, and versus neutral events. Asking what went right is being tested against asking what went wrong, which is a much fairer test than it first appears.
The gratitude groups did better on several outcome measures but not all of them, which the authors state plainly. It is a 2003 study of short duration, and it does not establish long-term change, clinical benefit, or that any particular format of journal is best. The third study was in a specific population - people with neuromuscular disease - and should not be generalised casually.
Articles citing this study
Summarized by Tiago Martins · Last updated: · How we write these
