Gratitude to God and relational virtues

ABSTRACT

Despite the flourishing psychological literature on gratitude that has accumulated over the past several decades, researchers have only recently started to programmatically study Gratitude to God (GTG). Given that gratitude has consistently demonstrated positive relationships with relational virtues, the current study examined the degree to which GTG is associated with forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism, above and beyond domain-general gratitude and religious commitment. Participants (N = 582 undergraduates) rated themselves on measures of religious commitment, domain-general gratitude, GTG, forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism. GTG positively predicted forgiveness over and above domain-general gratitude. GTG positively predicted relational humility over and above domain-general gratitude in participants with high levels of religious commitment. For altruism, neither GTG nor domain-general gratitude was a significant predictor, but religious commitment was a positive predictor. We conclude with a discussion of methodological limitations and suggestions for future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Gratitude to God
• relational virtue
• forgiveness
• relational humility
• altruism

The psychological study of gratitude has flourished over the past several decades (Emmons et al., 2004). Gratitude has been linked to a variety of positive outcomes, including well-being (Wood et al., 2010), physical health (Jans-Beken et al., 2020 and prosocial behaviors (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; J. Tsang, 2006, 2007). However, the vast majority of research has explored domain-general gratitude, and there is a relative dearth of research exploring specific targets of gratitude, such as gratitude to God (GTG; e.g., gratitude toward religious/spiritual entities, nature, the cosmos, etc.), and how GTG may be differentiate from domain-general gratitude (Rosmarin et al., 2011). Given that religious/spiritual identification has been positively linked with relational virtues (e.g., altruism, humility; Aghababaei et al., 2014; Goodman et al., 2021; Saroglou, 2010), GTG might play a unique role in predicting other positive relational virtues over and above general gratitude, especially for religious individuals. Hence, in the present study, we empirically examined the unique relationship between GTG and three relationalvirtues – forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism – across various levels of religious commitment.

On gratitude

A current open question within the study of gratitude is the degree to which GTG differentiates from gratitude to human persons (J. A. Tsang et al., 2021). Throughout the psychological literature, general gratitude has traditionally involved a receptivity of benefits and positive emotions towards the giver (e.g. Solomon, 1977). Additionally, gratitude involves the recognition of undeserved merit, in which the benefit was provided out of true freedom and benevolence from the giver (Bertocci & Millard, 1963). Domain-general gratitude has even been deemed the parent of all other virtues (Cicero, 1851), and a robust body of evidence has linked gratitude with prosocial behaviors and personality traits (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Graham, 1988; Peterson & Stewart, 1996; J. Tsang, 2006, 2007).

Emotion theorist Schwartz (1967) posited that expressing gratitude builds prosocial orientations in social relationships, and empirical research has largely supported this claim (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Grant & Gino, 2010). This relationship-enhancing benefit may present itself through relational bonding, providing social support, or ‘paying it forward’ (Algoe & Way, 2014; Algoe et al., 2013; DeSteno et al., 2010; Gordon et al., 2012; Jia et al., 2014, 2015; McCullough, Bellah, et al., 2001; Williams & Bartlett, 2015). For example, in a now classic study, Emmons and McCullough (2003) found that participants who completed a two-week daily gratitude journal exercise (i.e. making a gratitude list) were more likely to offer emotional support and tangible help to others (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). In a similar study, individuals who recalled moments in which they were grateful to someone reported more trust towards an unrelated third party (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005). Qualitative research has also found that expressing gratitude reinforces altruistic and prosocial behavior (Bennett et al., 2010; McCullough et al., 2008). Thus, various methods and approaches have converged to support the theory linking gratitude to positive relationship dynamics and outcomes.

Gratitude to God

Most research on gratitude has focused on the context of interpersonal relationships. However, people could also experience varying degrees of gratitude towards broader collectives or abstractions, such as God or a higher power. Recently, scholars have begun to develop programmatic research examining GTG and exploring how its intrapsychic and interpersonal processes and consequences contrast with gratitude towards other individuals. GTG is a unique subtype of gratitude that many have suggested presumes some degree of spirituality and assent to the existence of a supernatural agent towards which they could express gratitude (Rosmarin et al., 2011), although some have posited that one may not necessarily need to believe in a supernatural agent to express gratitude towards them (Manela, 2022). Research has found that expressing GTG leads to positive emotions (Carlisle & Tsang, 2013; Krause, 2012; Krause et al., 2014) and positive psychological outcomes (e.g. fewer depressive symptoms, higher self-rated health; Aghababaei & Tabik, 2013; Krause et al., 2014; Rosmarin et al., 2011). Thus, there is some evidence that GTG correlates positively with other psychological constructs, similar to domain-general gratitude. However, less is known regarding how GTG predicts prosocial behavior and relational virtues over and above domain-general gratitude.

 Gratitude (toward God) and relational virtues

It may be that imbuing gratitude with religious or spiritual meaning – such as GTG – could amplify the relationship between gratitude and positive outcomes, including relational virtues (e.g. forgiveness, humility, or altruism). Namely, the central purpose of many virtues involves promoting healthier relationships and stronger, genuine connections (Baumeister & Juola Exline, 1999; Goodman et al., 2021), and religious cultures tend to emphasize relational virtues (Emmons & Crumpler, 2000; Shariff et al., 2016).That is, religious teachings often are clear in proscribed and prescribed behaviors, highly lauding or directly commanding the practice of virtue. Religious teachings often clarify the types of behaviors individuals should orient their lives toward (e.g. Buddhism’s Eightfold Path, Christianity’s fruits of the spirit). Doing so likely yields benefits. Some have even argued that the emphasis on service to others may be one of religion’s greatest benefits (Krause & Hayward, 2015; Royce, 1912/2001), as providing social support has a stronger relationship with positive outcomes over receiving social support (Brown et al., 2003; Krause, 2006).  

In addition to the intrapsychic benefits of gratitude, which are well known, GTG might tap into larger contextual structures and habits that reinforce virtuous behavior. For example, Krause and Ellison (2009) posited that cohesive church environments may elicit gratitude to God by way of the following path: (1) A person who frequently attends the same church may believe their church has a strong community. (2) Due to their consistent attendance, that person is more likely to receive emotional and spiritual support from other church members. (3) Hence, they may likely experience a high degree of spiritual intimacy with others. (4) Their experience of high spiritual intimacy will likely evoke GTG. We also might expect that people higher in religious commitment might also experience greater contextual influence of religious culture (e.g. engaging in more religious activities, embedding themselves within religious communities, or appraising most aspects of their life through a religious meaning system; Worthington, 1988). To the degree that religion enhances virtuous behavior, the more one is committed to their religious tradition, the stronger this association should be. Hence, we might find that GTG is an especially potent predictor of relational virtues. Prior scientific work has demonstrated that domain-general gratitude correlates with relational virtues, but we currently lack evidence that a religious form of gratitude – and towards a higher being that undergirds an existential worldview and appraises high levels of giftedness across life – would correlate with relational virtues, even after controlling for domain-general gratitude. We sought to fill that gap by examining various relational virtues.

Forgiveness

First, current empirical research has identified a strong relationship between domain-general gratitude and forgiveness (Charzyńska et al., 2020; Çolak & Güngör, 2021; García-Vázquez et al., 2020; Hermaen & Bhutto, 2020; Sharma & Singh, 2018). Perhaps one reason for this strong relationship is the conceptual link between both gratitude and forgiveness with empathy, other-orientation, and pro-social behavior (Breen et al., 2010). Religious practices, through spiritual experiences, have also been found to predict self-reported tendencies to forgive, forgiveness intentions, and self-forgiveness (Davis et al., 2013; Hardy et al., 2014; McCullough & Worthington, 1999). Although the relationship between religion/spirituality and forgiveness may be inconsistent (e.g. there is a stronger relationship between religion/spirituality and trait forgiveness than state forgiveness, though the results may have been influenced by psychometric shortcomings; McCullough & Worthington, 1999; J. A. Tsang et al., 2005), in general, higher levels of religion/spirituality have been associated with higher levels of forgiveness, and it has also been suggested that forgiveness promotes spiritual growth and maturity (Oh, 2005). Lastly, Sharma and Singh (2018) found that religiosity, by pathway of spirituality and gratitude, predict forgiveness. Thus, it is possible that GTG may have a unique relationship with forgiveness over and above domain-general gratitude.

Relational humility

Second, gratitude and humility have also been conceptually linked through their pro-social and other-oriented nature (Kruse et al., 2014). Humility involves (a) having an accurate, holistic view of self and one’s strengths and weaknesses, (b) being other-oriented, and (c) lower levels of superiority (Davis et al., 2010; Funder, 1995; Kenny, 2004; Kwan et al., 2004; McCrae & Weiss, 2007; Wang et al., 2017; see; Van Tongeren et al., 2019 for a review). Because gratitude involves both the recognition of benevolence from the giver and undeserved merit on the part of the receiver, the receiver may be protected from high levels of superiority, encouraged to develop an accurate view of self, and remain oriented towards others. This is likely even more evident in religious/spiritual contexts where it may be impossible to repay the giver (e.g. God) for the gift, or when the receiver views themselves as completely unworthy of the gift. Given the strong correlation between religiousness and humility (Aghababaei et al., 2014), and the strong emphasis on humility in religions such as Christianity (Lavelock et al., 2017), religious/spiritual individuals who experience GTG may receive benefits in such a way that they develop an accurate view of self in relation to God and others, experience decreased superiority in their relationship with God and others, and develop a desire to give (e.g. pay forward) what they have received. Indeed, some extant research has found an indirect link between humility and GTG (Krause & Hayward, 2015).

Altruism

Third, practicing domain-general gratitude has consistently been shown to predict, motivate, and reinforce altruism (Caleon & Ilham, 2021; Karns et al., 2017; Sharma & Singh, 2018). Specifically, McCullough et al. (2008) proposed that domain-general gratitude may motivate upstream reciprocity, which involves providing undeserved benefits to third parties instead of reciprocating benefits to the original benefactor (Nowak & Roch, 2006). As with forgiveness and humility, higher levels of religiosity and spirituality have been shown to predict higher levels of perceived altruistic traits (Saroglou, 2010) and altruistic behaviors towards others (de Kemp et al., 2007; Reti et al., 2002; Soenens et al., 2007; Zarghi & Bolghan-Abadi, 2021). A meta-analysis on religious priming revealed how the cognitive activation of religious schema leads to greater prosociality (Shariff et al., 2016). Additionally, Sharma and Singh (2018) found that religiosity, through spirituality and gratitude, predicted altruism. However, there are also studies that demonstrate a negative relationship between religious identity and altruism (e.g. Saslow et al., 2013). For example, Silton and Fogel (2010) found that individual religiosity negatively predicted child altruism and positively predicted punitive attitudes. Whereas religiosity is a broad term, often measured by internal attitudes/beliefs or religious behaviors (e.g. church attendance), perhaps it is the more relational aspect of spirituality that accounts for greater prosociality, including altruism. It is possible that accounting for the role of GTG on altruistic behavior may help in understanding the mixed findings regarding religiosity and altruism. Specifically, our study will examine both the main effects and the interaction effect of GTG and religious commitment on altruism, which may provide more insight into the relationship between religion, gratitude to God, and altruism.

Religious commitment

If imbuing gratitude with religious or spiritual meaning, such as GTG, enhances relational virtues, then the degree to which one is committed to their religious meaning system should play a role in this process. For example, religious and spiritual identification has been found to predict prosocial attitudes and behaviors (Ebstyne King & Furrow, 2004; Hardy & Carlo, 2005), and these virtues are central in most prominent world religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions; Carman & Streng, 1989). Krause and Hayward (2015) proposed that one of the primary benefits of religion, or even the core of religion itself, may be found in relational virtues. Thus, it is necessary to not only examine the role of GTG in the expression of relational virtues, but to also consider the level of commitment one has to their religious/spiritual orientation.

The present study

Our study examined the extent to which GTG predicted relational virtues (i.e. forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism) over and above domain-general gratitude, and if the relationship between GTG and relational virtues differs across varying levels of religious/spiritual commitment. Specifically, we hypothesize that GTG will predict higher levels forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism over and above domain-general gratitude, and the positive relationship between GTG and each relational virtue will be stronger for individuals with higher levels of religious commitment (i.e. a moderating relationship).

Method

Participants

Participants were 582 adults (age M = 20.03, SD = 3.72) recruited from a large four-year public university in the Southwestern United States as part of a larger study examining culture and character strengths. Most participants were cisgender women (63.7%), followed by cisgender men (29.9%), nonbinary people (4.6%), transgender men (1.0%), transgender women (0.3%), and other (0.4%). Participants reported a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (37.1% White, 27.1% Latinx, 18.6% Black/African American, 8.6% Asian American/Pacific Islander, 6.9% Multiracial, 0.5% Native American, and 1.0% Other). Participants were mostly Christian (42.0%) – 23.3% identified as Catholic, followed by Evangelical Protestants (8.1%), Mainline Protestants (5.5%), Black Protestant (4.5%), and Latter-day Saints (0.5%). Participants also identified as Spiritual but not religious (17.4%), Agnostic (10.9%), None (7.1%), Atheist (6.6%), Muslim (3.5%) Hindu (1.7%), Buddhist (0.9%), and Other (9.5%). Most participants were heterosexual (68.2%, 20.3% bisexual, 3.3% lesbian, 2.4% gay, and 5.0% other).

Measures

Domain-general gratitude

Participants’ disposition towards gratitude was measured using the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6; McCullough et al., 2002). The GQ-6 consists of six items assessing participants’ overall levels of gratitude (e.g. ‘I have so much in life to be thankful for’, and ‘I am grateful to a wide variety of people’.). Participants rated each item on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating higher levels of dispositional gratitude. Scores on this measure have previously demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .82) and construct validity with strong positive correlations with other measures of gratitude and well-being (e.g. life satisfaction, hope) and negative correlations with negative mental health outcomes (e.g. depression, anxiety) (McCullough et al., 2002). For the current sample, the GQ-6 demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .82).

Gratitude to God

Participants’ disposition toward gratitude to God or a higher power (i.e. the Sacred) was measured using the Gratitude to God – Trait scale (GTG-T; Watkins et al., 2019). The GTG-T consists of 10 items assessing various dimensions of gratitude to God (e.g. ‘When I think of how good others have been to me, it makes me very thankful to God’, and ‘Life is a wonderful gift from God’. Participants rated each item on a nine-point Likert scale from 1 = I strongly disagree to 9 = I strongly agree with the statement, with higher scores indicating higher levels of gratitude to God. Scores on this measure have demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .96) and convergent validity with strong positive correlations with spiritual well-being and domain-general gratitude. For the current sample, the GTG-T demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .97).

Religious commitment

Participants’ level of religious commitment was measured using the Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI-10; Worthington et al., 2003). The RCI-10 consists of 10 items assessing participants’ commitment towards religion (e.g. ‘religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life’). Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = not true at all of me to 5 = totally true of me, with higher scores indicating higher religious commitment. The RCI-10 has previously demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .92) and construct validity (Worthington et al., 2003). For the current sample, the RCI-10 demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .96).

Forgiveness

We were interested in exploring interpersonal forgiveness in a difficult interpersonal context (i.e. state forgiveness). Participants completed a measure of forgiveness in relation to a hurt or disagreement related to race/ethnicity as part of a larger study. Participants’ levels of forgiveness was measured with the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998, 2006). The TRIM consists of 18 items comprised by three subscales: (1) avoidance (7 items; e.g. ‘I withdraw from him/her’); (2) revenge (5 items; e.g. ‘I wish that something bad would happen to him/her’); and (3) benevolence (6 items; e.g. ‘Even though his/her actions hurt me, I still have goodwill for him/her’). Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A total forgiveness score was taken by averaging all 18 items (the Avoidance and Revenge subscale items were reverse coded), with higher scores indicating higher levels of forgiveness. The TRIM has previously demonstrated high internal consistency for the avoidance subscale (α = .83 to .94), the revenge subscale (α = .83 to .94), and the benevolence subscale (α = .86 to .96) (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002). Furthermore, the TRIM scales demonstrated high convergent validity by positively correlating with other measures of forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998). For the current sample, the TRIM total demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .95).

Relational humility

Participants’ levels of interpersonal humility were assessed using the self-report version of the Relational Humility Scale (RHS; Davis et al., 2011). The RHS consists of 16 items comprised by three subscales: (1) Global Humility (5 items; e.g. ‘Most people would consider me to be a humble person’,); (2) Superiority (7 items; e.g. ‘Certain tasks are beneath me’,); and (3) Accurate View of Self (4 items; e.g. ‘I am self-aware’). Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. A total relational humility score was derived from averaging all 16 items (the Superiority subscale items were reverse coded), with scores indicating higher levels of relational humility. The RHS has previously demonstrated high internal consistency for the full scale, Global Humility subscale, Superiority subscale, and Accurate View of Self subscale (α = .95, .97, .90, and .90, respectively). Additionally, the RHS has previously demonstrated construct validity through positive correlations with forgiveness and empathy towards an offender. For the current sample, the RHS Full Scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .83).

Altruism

Participants’ levels of altruistic behavior (i.e. altruistic personality) was assessed using the Self-Report Altruism Scale (i.e. Altruistic Personality Scale) (SRA; Rushton et al., 1981). The SRA consists of 20 items assessing participants’ consistency in altruistic behavior (e.g. ‘I have given money to charity’, and ‘I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing’). Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = Never to 5 = Very Often, with higher total averages indicating higher consistency of altruistic behavior. The SRA has previously demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .78 to .87) and high convergent validity by correlating positively with social responsibility, empathy, nurturing, ‘high’ moral reasoning, and high levels of equity and helpfulness as personal values (Rushton et al., 1981). For the current sample, the SRA-scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .91).

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the first author’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), participants were recruited from undergraduate courses in exchange for course credit or extra credit. Participants completed the survey online via Qualtrics. First, participants provided informed consent, then filled out the study questionnaires. Participant were prompted to reflect upon a hurt or offense regarding race/ethnicity, and then fill out a series of questionnaires related to virtues, well-being, relational functioning, religion/spirituality, and multicultural identity. Lastly, participants were debriefed and provided with the contact information of the primary research team and IRB if they had any questions about the study.

Results

First, we checked for missing data, and 218 out of 800 participants did not complete enough scale items to calculate a mean score for the study measures (e.g. TRIM-18, GTG-T, RHS) and were excluded from the dataset. Thus, 582 participants were included in the final dataset. Then, we checked the data for outliers and normality. Domain-general gratitude had three low outliers, relational humility had two low outliers, altruism had eight high outliers, and forgiveness had four low outliers and three high outliers. High outliers were recoded to three standard deviations above the mean, and low outliers were recoded to three standard deviations below the mean. (Since these outliers were legitimate responses, our goal was to retain the high or low value, yet reduce the impact of the outliers on the overall analysis.) All study variables met normality assumptions. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between all study variables are in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. GQ_6	5.61	1.08	-
2. GTG_T	5.53	2.42	.31**	-
3. RCI	2.26	1.18	.13**	.63**	-
4. TRIM Total	3.39	0.39	.17**	.18**	.13**	-
5. RHS Total	3.96	0.78	.45**	.17**	.11**	.20**	-
6. SRA	2.62	0.69	.08**	.13*	.20*	.08	.20**	-

Note. GQ_6 = Gratitude Questionnaire – Six Item Form; GTG_T = Gratitude to God – Trait; RCI = Religious Commitment Inventory;TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation Inventory; RHS = Relational Humility Scale; SRA = Self-Report Altruistic scale). GQ-6 ranges from 1 to 7, GTG_T ranges from 1 to 9; and all other scales range from 1 to 5.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

For the main analyses, we hypothesized that GTG would positively predict each relational virtue (i.e. forgiveness, humility, altruism) while controlling for domain-general gratitude. Furthermore, we hypothesized that religious commitment would moderate the relationship between GTG and each relational virtue, such that the positive relationship between GTG and each relational virtue would be stronger for participants with higher levels of religious commitment. To conduct each moderation analyses, we used PROCESS v. 3.5.3 Model 1 (Hayes, 2018). If the interaction was significant, we tested conditional effects of the predictor at one standard deviation above and below the mean of the moderator variable. Our hypotheses were partially supported.

Forgiveness

For forgiveness, the model significantly predicted about 5% of the variance in forgiveness (R² = .05,p < .001). For main effects, domain-general gratitude (b = .04, p = .013) and GTG (b = .02, p = .022) positively predicted forgiveness, while religious commitment (b = .01, p = .716) did not. Also, the interaction between GTG and religious commitment (b = .01, p = .127) was not significant (see Table 2).

Table 2. PROCESS model 1 analysis predicting forgiveness.

Predictor	b (SE)	t	p
Constant	3.15 (.09)	35.53**	<.001
Domain-General Gratitude	.04 (.02)	2.49*	.013
Gratitude to God	.02 (.01)	2.30*	.022
Religious Commitment	.01 (.02)	.36	.72
Gratitude to God x Religious Commitment	.01 (.01)	1.53	.127

Note. *p < .05**p < .001.

Relational humility

For relational humility, the model significantly predicted about 21% of the variance in relational humility (R² = .21, p < .001). For main effects, domain-general gratitude was a positive predictor of relational humility (b = .29,p < .001); GTG (b = .02, p = .353) and religious commitment (b = .00, p = .940) were not (see Table 3). However, consistent with our hypotheses, there was a significant interaction between GTG and religious commitment(b = .03, p = .010), see Figure 1. At high levels of religious commitment, GTG was a positive predictor of relational humility (b = .05, p = .040), but at low levels of religious commitment, the relationship between GTG and relational humility was not significant (b = −.02, p = .245).

Figure 1. Moderation effect of religious commitment on the association between gratitude to God (GTG) and relational humility(p = .010), in which GTG positively predicted higher levels of relational humility in participants with high religious commitment(β = .05, p = .040), but not in participants with low religious commitment (β = −.02, p = .245).

Table 3. Process model 1 analysis predicting relational humility.

Predictor	b (SE)	t	p
Constant	2.26 (.16)	14.03**	<.001
Domain-General Gratitude	.29 (.03)	10.16**	<.001
Gratitude to God	.02 (.02)	.93	.353
Religious Commitment	.003 (.03)	.08	.940
Gratitude to God x Religious Commitment	.03 (.01)	2.59*	.010

Note. *p < .05**p < .001.

Altruism

For altruism, the model significantly predicted about 5% of the variance in altruism (R² = .05, p < .001). For main effects, religious commitment positively predicted altruism (b = .11, p < .001); domain-general gratitude (b = .03, p = .300) and GTG (b = −.00, p = .973) did not. Furthermore, the interaction between GTG and religious commitment (b = .01, p = .372) was not significant (see Table 4).

Table 4. PROCESS model 1 analysis predicting altruism.

Predictor	b (SE)	t	p
Constant	2.44 (.16)	15.59**	<.001
Domain-General Gratitude	.03 (.03)	1.04	.300
Gratitude to God	−.00 (.02)	−.03	.973
Religious Commitment	.11** (.03)	3.33**	.001
Gratitude to God x Religious Commitment	.01 (.01)	.89	.372

Note.*p < .05**p < .001.

Discussion

A strong line of research has demonstrated a positive relationship between domain-general gratitude, prosocial behaviors, and relational virtues (e.g. forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism) (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; J. Tsang, 2006, 2007). Given that research has shown that higher levels of religious commitment have some positive relationship to relational virtues (Aghababaei et al., 2014; Saroglou, 2010), and the relative dearth of empirical research on GTG, the present study aimed to examine the effects of GTG on relational virtues and assess for differences across varying levels of religious commitment. Along with McCullough et al. (2008) theory of upstream reciprocity in engaging in gratitude – specifically GTG – we hypothesized that GTG would uniquely and positively predict forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism, over and above domain-general gratitude, and that the relationship between GTG and each relational virtue would be stronger for individuals with higher levels of religious commitment.

Our hypotheses were partially supported. Regarding forgiveness, GTG uniquely predicted forgiveness while controlling for domain-general gratitude. This aligns with previous research demonstrating a positive link between domain-general gratitude and forgiveness (Charzyńska et al., 2020; Çolak & Güngör, 2021; García-Vázquez et al., 2020; Hermaen & Bhutto, 2020; Sharma & Singh, 2018), as well as the unique predictive power of GTG over and above domain-general gratitude (Rosmarin et al., 2011). Additionally, because the present study utilized a measure of forgiveness that involved a specific transgressor (in this case, a transgressor who committed a racial/ethnic-related offense), our results contribute to previous research findings that religious identity negligibly predicted forgiveness towards a specific transgressor (McCullough & Worthington, 1999).

Regarding relational humility, although GTG did not individually predict relational humility over and above domain-general gratitude, we found a significant interaction of GTG and religious commitment: the relationship of GTG and relational humility was stronger for individuals with higher levels of religious commitment in comparison to those with lower levels of religious commitment. Our findings support previous research that has demonstrated both a positive relationship between domain-general gratitude to humility (Kruse et al., 2014) and the unique predictive power of GTG (Rosmarin et al., 2011), though only for religiously committed individuals in our sample. For individuals with higher levels of religious commitment, GTG may play a significant factor in increased relational humility. These findings support our hypothesis that GTG may encourage an accurate view of self in relation to God, decrease maladaptive superiority by accepting the unmerited aspect of receiving benefits from God, and reinforce an other-oriented mindset among the religiously committed.

Regarding altruism, neither domain-general gratitude nor GTG predicted altruism. Furthermore, the relationship of GTG and altruism did not significantly differ across varying levels of religious commitment. In our model, only religious commitment significantly predicted altruism. Interestingly, our findings did not support previous research that found a positive relationship between domain-general gratitude and altruism (Caleon & Ilham, 2021; Karns et al., 2017; Sharma & Singh, 2018). However, our findings supported previous research demonstrating a positive link between religious commitment and altruism (de Kemp et al., 2007; Reti et al., 2002; Saroglou, 2010; Soenens et al., 2007; Zarghi & Bolghan-Abadi, 2021). These results suggest that one’s commitment to their religious group is a stronger predictor of altruism than experiencing domain-general gratitude or GTG. Perhaps part of the reason for this finding is due to the behaviorally-anchored nature of the Altruistic Personality Scale. Compared to the forgiveness and humility measures used in this study (which largely capture internal thoughts, feelings, and attitudes), the Altruistic Personality Scale measures how often a person has engaged in altruistic acts (e.g. giving money to charity). It may be the case that religious commitment offers individuals with greater opportunities to engage in altruistic acts, and that this relationship overshadowed the relationship of GTG and domain-general gratitude with altruism. GTG may have a more direct influence on one’s thoughts and feelings of being altruistic.

Overall, our study suggested that domain-general gratitude, GTG, and religious commitment have different relationships with forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism. GTG demonstrated distinctive predictive power while controlling for domain-general gratitude in forgiveness, and GTG demonstrated unique predictive power in relational humility among individuals with high religious commitment. However, our study did not reveal a significant relationship between domain-general gratitude, GTG, and altruism, although a positive relationship between religious commitment and altruistic personality was supported. Our study partially supports previous research positing GTG as unique aspect of gratitude (e.g. Rosmarin et al., 2011), though only in predicting forgiveness generally and relational humility in highly religious individuals. Additionally, the current study analyzed GTG in conjunction with religious commitment, demonstrating that religious commitment strengthened the relationship between GTG and relational humility, and that religious commitment in and of itself positively predicted altruism. Lastly, this study partially supports previous research demonstrating a positive relationship between domain-general gratitude and relational virtues, with domain-general gratitude having predicted both forgiveness and relational humility, but not altruism.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

The results of our study should be interpreted in the context of its methodological limitations. First, the present study utilized a cross-sectional, correlational study design. Thus, causal inferences between GTG and relational virtues could not be determined. Future research should examine the causal inferences of GTG and relational virtues through experimental and/or longitudinal designs. Experimentally, researchers could randomly assign participants to complete a GTG writing intervention, a domain-general gratitude writing intervention, and a control writing intervention, followed by relational virtue assessments. Furthermore, researchers might consider a longitudinal design in which writing interventions are completed across multiple time intervals and relational virtues are assessed over time.

Second, our participant pool solely consisted of undergraduate students. Our study findings may not generalize to children, adolescents, or older age groups. This is especially important given that religious identification has been shown to decline and spirituality tends to shift during undergraduate years (Bryant & Astin, 2008; Bryant et al., 2003). Researchers should recruit participants beyond college populations to examine the generalizability of the positive relationship between GTG and relational virtues across various age groups.

Third, given the correlational design of our study, future research should examine how other related variables might influence the positive relationship between GTG, religious commitment, and relational virtues. For example, gratitude and forgiveness have been conceptually linked through empathy (Breen et al., 2010). Other-orientation, empathy, compassion, dimensions of grace, and other prosocial behaviors and attitudes should be examined as moderators and mediators in the relationship between GTG and relational virtues. Furthermore, religious commitment could be examined in greater detail, such as examining the predictive value of GTG across different religious and spiritual orientations (i.e. extrinsic, intrinsic, quest).

Fourth, our study utilized self-report measures to assess relational virtues. Self-report measures of humility have been shown to be affected by social desirability (Rowatt et al., 2002). Furthermore, since relational virtues have been shown to be highly valued in religious and spiritual contexts, it may be that individuals with higher levels of religious commitment may have rated themselves as higher in altruistic personality and relational humility given their religious and spiritual values and what they aspire to be, though perhaps not entirely based on their own behavior. Future research could utilize observer ratings of participants’ relational humility, altruism, and forgiveness conducted in laboratory or naturalistic settings (Dorn et al., 2014). Since our study results may have been impacted by social desirability and since our hypotheses were partially supported, a replication of our study using observable measures is strongly suggested.

Additional practical implications

Our data suggests that domain-general gratitude, GTG, and religious commitment impact positive relational functioning in unique ways. Although we cannot draw causal inferences, religious and spiritual individuals, congregations, and leaders may consider how domain-general gratitude, GTG, and religious commitment could impact one’s spiritual development and the growth of relational virtues. Perhaps there are practices of GTG that are more closely tied to the development of relational virtues, or it could be that engaging in relational virtues leads to one experiencing more GTG. Interdisciplinary collaborations could continue to serve this field well by developing hypotheses and empirically testing how GTG is related to spiritual development.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that GTG predicts forgiveness and uniquely predicts relational humility among religious and spiritual individuals. Though GTG did not uniquely predict altruism, our study demonstrated a strong positive relationship between religious commitment on altruism. These mixed findings partially support previous research demonstrating a positive link between gratitude and relational outcomes and religious commitment and relational virtues. Given the unique relationships between GTG and each relational virtue (i.e. forgiveness, relational humility, and altruism) and provided the limitations of the present study, researchers should analyze the unique predictive power of GTG and the mechanisms in which GTG is related to positive relational virtues.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (Grant No. 61513).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, SZ, upon reasonable request via email.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the John Templeton Foundation [61513].