The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 15 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor
Open accessAbstract
Do acts of kindness improve the well-being of the actor? Recent advances in the behavioural sciences have provided a number of explanations of human social, cooperative and altruistic behaviour. These theories predict that people will be ‘happy to help’ family, friends, community members, spouses, and even strangers under some conditions. Here we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence that kindness interventions (for example, performing ‘random acts of kindness’) boost subjective well-being. Our initial search of the literature identified 489 articles; of which 24 (27 studies) met the inclusion criteria (total N = 4045). These 27 studies, some of which included multiple control conditions and dependent measures, yielded 52 effect sizes. Multi-level modeling revealed that the overall effect of kindness on the well-being of the actor is small-to-medium (δ = 0.28). The effect was not moderated by sex, age, type of participant, intervention, control condition or outcome measure. There was no indication of publication bias. We discuss the limitations of the current literature, and recommend that future research test more specific theories of kindness: taking kindness-specific individual differences into account; distinguishing between the effects of kindness to specific categories of people; and considering a wider range of proximal and distal outcomes. Such research will advance our understanding of the causes and consequences of kindness, and help practitioners to maximise the effectiveness of kindness interventions to improve well-being.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental kindness interventions found that performing acts of kindness improves the actor’s subjective well-being, with a small-to-medium overall effect (δ = 0.28). Across 27 studies (N = 4045), effects were not moderated by tested demographic, intervention, control, or outcome variables, and there was no indication of publication bias.
Key findings
- The overall effect of kindness on actor well-being was δ = 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.41], Z = 4.36, p < .001, described as approximately equivalent to a 0.6 increase on a standard 0–10 happiness scale.
- The review identified 24 articles containing 27 studies (total N = 4045) and 52 effect sizes; individual effect sizes ranged from −0.46 to 1.25 (M = 0.25, SD = 0.32), and sample sizes ranged from 26 to 474 (M = 158.57, SD = 132.05).
- The effect was not moderated by sex, age, type of participant, intervention, control condition, or outcome measure; metaforest screening yielded a median out-of-bootstrap explained variance of R²_oob = −0.11.
- There was no indication of publication bias: Begg’s test was Z = 1.07, p = .28, and file drawer analysis indicated 1919 unpublished null studies would be needed to bring the average unweighted effect to nonsignificance.
Methods
- Systematic searches of Web of Science and PsychInfo plus other sources yielded 489 articles after duplicate removal; 24 articles (27 studies) met inclusion criteria requiring experiments that randomly allocated participants to kind-behaviour interventions versus controls and subsequently measured well-being.
- Study characteristics were coded, including age, sex, location, participant type, intervention type, recipient type, control condition, dependent measures, group sizes, and Cohen’s d effect sizes; effect sizes were taken from papers or computed from reported statistics.
- Main analysis used three-level meta-analysis in R with metafor to account for dependent effect sizes within studies; metaforest random forests with 10,000 bootstrap samples were used to screen potential moderators.
Limitations
- The paper states that most reviewed studies were underpowered (average sample size per condition N = 79; power 1−β = 0.42 to detect d = 0.28; at least 202 per group needed for 1−β = 0.80), mostly used non-clinical student samples from W.E.I.R.D. societies, did not manipulate the motive behind kind acts, did not test fine-grained predictions from specific altruism theories or systematically vary recipient type, and mostly examined immediate rather than longer-term or distal outcomes.
- The text also makes evident that some effect sizes could not be calculated because statistics were not reported in the paper or available from the authors (Table 1 note), and that the small sample size limited moderator analysis, requiring metaforest to avoid overfitting.
- The paper notes that control conditions varied, and some studies compared kindness with doing nothing, which may confound kindness effects with the effects of performing any novel fun activity.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
15 Own result · 11 Not checked yet · 6 Own interpretation · 6 No basis given · 5 Own method
In the paper
“Email correspondence with the author revealed that the data are no longer available.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“File drawer analysis (Rosenthal, 1979) revealed that 1919 unpublished, filed, or unretrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted effect size to nonsignificance.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.3. Meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosenthal, 1979 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multi-level modeling revealed that the overall effect of kindness on the well-being of the actor is small-tomedium (δ = 0.28).”
- Also stated in: § 5.3. Meta-analysis · plain
“Results revealed that the overall effect size estimate was δ = 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.41], Z = 4.36, p < .001(see Fig. 2).This is a small-to-medium effect, approximately equivalent to an increase of 0.6 on a standard 0-10 happiness scale (Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2016).”
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · hedged
“The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental kindness literature suggests that performing acts of kindness improves the well-being of the actor (δ = 0.28).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Abstract
plaindirectn = 4,045- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 5.3. Meta-analysis · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, although the finding is consistent with the general evolutionary account of altruism outlined above, existing research has not tested the more fine-grained predictions that arise from the more specific theories of helping (kin altruism, mutualism, reciprocal altruism and competitive altruism).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, most of the reviewed studies used non-clinical samples of students, from Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic societies (W.E.I.R.D.; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect size estimates ranged from -0.46 to 1.25 (M = 0.25, SD = 0.32).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.2. Descriptive statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recipients of kindness included colleagues and charities, but were for the most part left unspecified, and could be 'anyone'familiar or unfamiliar, family, friend, community member of stranger.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · plain
“In fact, in most cases the recipient was left unspecified that is, they could be 'anyone'.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.1. Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no indication of publication bias.”
- Also stated in: § 5.3. Meta-analysis · hedged
“Begg's test of funnel asymmetry (based on random-effects meta-analysis) similarly did not indicate significant bias, Z = 1.07, p = 0.28.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · plain
“And there was no evidence of publication bias.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Abstract
plainn = 4,045- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 5.3. Meta-analysis · hedged
In the paper
“This is a small-to-medium effect, approximately equivalent to an increase of 0.6 on a standard 0-10 happiness scale (Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2016).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.3. Meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The small sample size limits our ability to include these moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis without risking overfitting (modeling random noise in the data, rather than true moderating effects).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.4. Moderation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three-level model | 3 | 22.14 28.16 -8.07 | | |”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample sizes ranged from 26 to 474 participants (M = 158.57,SD = 132.05).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.2. Descriptive statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likelihood ratio tests also indicated that constraining the within-studies variance to zero would not worsen model fit, whereas constraining either the between-studies variance or both variance components to zero did lead to significant deteriorations in model fit (see Table 2).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.3. Meta-analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifth and finally, existing research has tended to look at the immediate effects of kindness well-being.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies reviewed here varied whether actions benefitting others were performed, they did not vary whether the benefits were intended or notin other words, they did not manipulate the motive behind the action.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, most of the reviewed studies were under-powered.The average sample size per condition was N = 79; this gives power of only 1-β = 0.42 to detect a typical effect size of d = 0.28.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
plainn = 79- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The within-studies variance component σ w 2 was negligible, 0.00, 95% CI [ < 0.01, 0.02].The between-studies variance σ b 2 , on the other hand, differed significantly from zero, 0.08, 95% CI [0.04, 0.18].”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.3. Meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median estimated explained variance in out-of-bootstrap cases was negative (R oob 2 = -0.11),with a large standard deviation across replications (SD = 0.19).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.4. Moderation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Between-studies variance constrained | 2 | 33 | 36.76 -14.37 12.61 0 | |”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the article does not report the size of the sample, the dependent measure, or any inferential statistics (for example, effect size or significance).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect was not moderated by sex, age, type of participant, intervention, control condition or outcome measure.”
- Also stated in: § 5.4. Moderation · plain
“we did not find evidence for associations between the moderators and effect size.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · plain
“The effect was not moderated by sex, age, type of participant, intervention, control condition or outcome measure.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Abstract
plainn = 4,045- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5.4. Moderation · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our initial search of the literature identified 489 articles; of which 24 (27 studies) met the inclusion criteria (total N = 4045).”
- Also stated in: § 5.1. Study characteristics · plain
“These 27 studies included a total of 4045 participants (mean proportion male = 35%, mean age = 25.04,SD = 11.05).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Abstract
plainn = 4,045- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5.1. Study characteristics · plain
In the paper
“The most highly cited paper in the kindness literature (with citations at the time of the last search) purports to provide evidence that kind acts boosts the well-being of the actor(Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These 27 studies, some of which included multiple control conditions and dependent measures, yielded 52 effect sizes.”
- Also stated in: § 5.1. Study characteristics · plain
“Some studies had multiple control conditions, and/or multiple outcome measures, and hence provided more than one effect size; there were 52 in total.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Abstract
plainn = 4,045- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § 5.1. Study characteristics · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within-studies variance constrained | 2 | 20.14 24.15 -8.07 | 0 | 1 |”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both variance components constrained 1 | 78 | 80.25 -38.12 60.1 | 0 | |”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In order to detect such an effect with power 1-β = 0.80, future researchers should use a sample size of at least 202 per group (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These theories predict that people will be 'happy to help' family, friends, community members, spouses, and even strangers under some conditions.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We replicated the analysis 100 times to ensure the reliability of findings.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.4. Moderation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus it remains unclear whether the current findings would generalise to clinical samples of participants diagnosed with specific mental health problems, in non-WEIRD societies.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data and analysis script for this study are available on its Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/sey6x/).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these results suggest that policy-makers and practitioners are correct to see kindness interventions as effective ways of improving wellbeing.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These averages are approximate (~), because the age and sex ratio of the samples were not available for some studies.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Helping others makes you happy, but the effect is relatively modest.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that the between-studies component was larger than the within-studies component indicates that the variation in effect sizes was primarily accounted for by differences between studies, whereas differences between effect sizes within the same studies were negligible.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 5.3. Meta-analysis
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Previous research has found an association between motive and outcome; one longitudinal study found that volunteers motivated by a desire to help others lived longer than non-volunteers, but that volunteers motivated by a desire to help themselves did not (Konrath, Fuhrel-Forbis, Lou, & Brown, 2012).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Konrath, Fuhrel-Forbis, Lou, & Brown, 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the argument here is that biology and culture have equipped us to help automatically, intuitively, innocentlythere is no suggestion that people are necessarily aware of the causes of their benevolent behaviour, or are acting from any ulterior motive.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The effect of kindness is small-to-mediumcomparable to other positive psychology interventions (such as 'mindfulness', 'positive thinking' and 'counting your blessings'; d = 0.34, Bolier et al., 2013;d = 0.31, Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009;d = 0.44, Weiss, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2016).”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And they support the general claim that, as social animals, humans possess a range of psychological mechanisms that motivate them to help others, and that they derive satisfaction from doing so.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 6. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“*= Statistics neededto calculate effect size were not reported in the paper, nor available from the authors.”
§ Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor ☆ > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The experimental studies included in the meta-analysis validly manipulated kindness and measured well-being, so their effect sizes can be interpreted as causal.
“experiments that randomly allocated participants to (b) interventions involving kind behaviour and controls and (c) subsequently measured and compared participant well-being.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Altruistic and prosocial social behavior appears to promote well-being for the helpers [18, 39].”
From Psychiatric symptoms, risk, and protective factors among university students in quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic in China (2021) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Prosocial behavior has been associated with a plethora of positive mental health outcomes, including increased positive affect, family and community impact, social network, overall mental health, and satisfaction with life, as reviewed by Curry et al. ( 2018 ).”
From A latent profile analysis of aggression and prosocial behavior in relation to adolescent wellbeing (2025) · cites this paper as Curry et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“a meta-analysis of 27 experimental studies shows that practising acts of kindness has a small-to-moderate effect on increasing well-being of the kindness-actors 5 .”
From Kindness as a public health action (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentz = 4.36reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“Z = 4.36, p < .001”
- Consistentz = 1.07reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .285
“Z = 1.07, p = .28”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,817
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
The satisfaction with life scale
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 · Cited by 31,768
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 · Cited by 11,567
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“File drawer analysis (Rosenthal, 1979) revealed that 1919 un-published, fi led, or unretrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted e ff ect size to nonsigni fi cance.”
Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.5.410 · Cited by 5,947
SMITH, J. M., & PRICE, G. R. (1973) · Nature · doi:10.1038/246015a0 · Cited by 5,089
Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000129 · Cited by 4,882
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II
Hamilton, W. D. O. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6 · Cited by 4,158
A Measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1023/a:1006824100041 · Cited by 4,071
Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111 · Cited by 3,203
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.20593 · Cited by 2,955 · cited 1×
“The e ff ect of kindness is small-to-medium – comparable to other positive psychology interventions (such as ‘ mindfulness ’ , ‘ positive thinking ’ and ‘ counting your blessings ’ ; d=0.34, Bolier et al., 2013; d=0.31, Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; d=0.44, Weiss, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2016).”
InfluentialExperiments in Intergroup Discrimination
Tajfel, H. (1970) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96 · Cited by 2,577
The Handbook of evolutionary psychology
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-0622 · Cited by 2,128
Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-119 · Cited by 1,996 · cited 1×
“The e ff ect of kindness is small-to-medium – comparable to other positive psychology interventions (such as ‘ mindfulness ’ , ‘ positive thinking ’ and ‘ counting your blessings ’ ; d=0.34, Bolier et al., 2013; d=0.31, Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; d=0.44, Weiss, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2016).”
Influential“Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., et al. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000142 · Cited by 1,898
Spending money on others promotes happiness
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1150952 · Cited by 1,657
(2000) · Cited by 1,630
Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences
Huppert, F. A. (2009) · Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x · Cited by 1,583
The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure
Skyrms, B. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139165228 · Cited by 1,536
Rider, R. A. (1984) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(84)90012-x · Cited by 1,506
OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being
OECD (2013) · doi:10.1787/9789264191655-en · Cited by 1,434
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF)
Lamers, S. M. A., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.20741 · Cited by 1,402
The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1100290108 · Cited by 1,303
The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle
Zehavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997) · Cited by 1,179
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162
Sachs, J. L., Mueller, U. G., Wilcox, T. P., & Bull, J. J. (2004) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/383541 · Cited by 1,137
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037737 · Cited by 1,126
Loneliness Across the Life Span
Qualter, P., Vanhalst, J., Harris, R., Van Roekel, E., Lodder, G., Bangee, M., Maes, M., & Verhagen, M. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615568999 · Cited by 1,080
Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals.
Dunbar, R., Harcourt, A. H., & de Waal, F. Β. Μ. (1993) · Man · doi:10.2307/2803426 · Cited by 968
Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies
Clutton-Brock, T. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08366 · Cited by 951
Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04981 · Cited by 930
Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal
Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas‐Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Nyende, P., Ashton-James, C. E., & Norton, M. I. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031578 · Cited by 887
Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization.
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.251541498 · Cited by 870
Costly Signaling and Cooperation
Gintis, H. M., Smith, E. A., & Bowles, S. (2001) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1006/jtbi.2001.2406 · Cited by 865
Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167206291006 · Cited by 836
The evolution of cooperation and altruism – a general framework and a classification of models
Lehmann, L., & Keller, L. (2006) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01119.x · Cited by 801
The architecture of human kin detection
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05510 · Cited by 748
Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation
(2003) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3232.001.0001 · Cited by 742
Jenkinson, C. E., Dickens, A. P., Jones, K., Thompson-Coon, J., Taylor, R. S., Rogers, M., Bambra, C. L., Lang, I., & Richards, S. H. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-773 · Cited by 730
The Evolution of Parental Care
Kölliker, M. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692576.001.0001 · Cited by 690
Beyond WEIRD: towards a broad-based behavioral science
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000725 · Cited by 631
The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language
Pinker, S. A. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0914630107 · Cited by 591
Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0914826107 · Cited by 584
Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Collcutt, S. N., Higham, T., Hodge, E. J., Parfitt, S. A., Rhodes, E. J., Schwenninger, J., et al. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0703877104 · Cited by 567
The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements
Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.6.777 · Cited by 546
The Ties That Bind Us: Ritual, Fusion, and Identification
Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. (2014) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/678698 · Cited by 509
Self-citationCognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11002160 · Cited by 507
Hawkes, K. (1991) · Ethology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1016/0162-3095(91)90011-e · Cited by 481
Turtle hunting and tombstone opening
Smith, E. A., & Bird, R. B. (2000) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00031-3 · Cited by 461
(2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.001.0001 · Cited by 457
Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: a multilevel approach
Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0527-2 · Cited by 450
On the move: how and why animals travel in groups
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-1570 · Cited by 423
Weiss, L. A., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158092 · Cited by 405
Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments
DOLAN, P., & METCALFE, R. (2012) · Journal of Social Policy · doi:10.1017/s0047279411000833 · Cited by 404 · cited 1×
“Subjective well-being – including happiness, life-satisfaction and positive a ff ect – refers to a range positively valenced psychological states (Dolan & Metcalfe, 2012; OECD, 2013).”
Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment
Carter, G. G., & Wilkinson, G. S. (2013) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2573 · Cited by 404
Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051380 · Cited by 388
Evolution of Human Parental Behavior and the Human Family
Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2001) · Parenting · doi:10.1080/15295192.2001.9681209 · Cited by 388
Buss, D. M. (2000) · PubMed · Cited by 388
Stepwise evolution of stable sociality in primates
Shultz, S., Opie, C., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10601 · Cited by 373
Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0710069105 · Cited by 371
Fundamentals of Evolutionary Game Theory and its Applications
Tanimoto, J. (2015) · Evolutionary economics and social complexity science · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-54962-8 · Cited by 367
Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device.
Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00093-9 · Cited by 360
Nelson, S. K., Layous, K., Cole, S. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000178 · Cited by 356
Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.
Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0025354 · Cited by 349
Neurocognitive Adaptations Designed for Social Exchange
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470939376.ch20 · Cited by 349
Buss, D. M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.15 · Cited by 320
Social Welfare as Small‐Scale Help: Evolutionary Psychology and the Deservingness Heuristic
Petersen, M. B. (2011) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x · Cited by 320
Giving leads to happiness in young children
Aknin, L. B., Hamlin, J. K., & Dunn, E. W. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039211 · Cited by 304
Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1102131108 · Cited by 304
Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centred Approach
Curry, O. S. (2016) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2 · Cited by 293
Self-citationMeat eating and human evolution
Marean, C. W. (2002) · American Journal of Human Biology · doi:10.1002/ajhb.1146 · Cited by 289
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J., & Jones, N. G. B. (2001) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00066-0 · Cited by 285
Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. (2002) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1964 · Cited by 285
Motives for volunteering are associated with mortality risk in older adults.
Konrath, S., Fuhrel-Forbis, A., Lou, A., & Brown, S. (2012) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025226 · Cited by 268
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-016-9552-z · Cited by 253
Prosocial behavior leads to happiness in a small-scale rural society.
Aknin, L. B., Broesch, T., Hamlin, J. K., & de Vondervoort, J. W. V. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000082 · Cited by 246
Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending
Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Whillans, A. V., Grant, A. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2013.01.008 · Cited by 222
Kinship and altruism: A cross‐cultural experimental study
Madsen, E. A., Tunney, R. J., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H. C., Dunbar, R., Richardson, J., & McFarland, D. J. (2006) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712606x129213 · Cited by 219
Culture Matters When Designing a Successful Happiness-Increasing Activity
Layous, K., Lee, K., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022113487591 · Cited by 213
Whose Lives Count?: TV Coverage of Natural Disasters
Adams, W. C. (1986) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1986.tb01429.x · Cited by 196
Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: Pattern and process in the peopling of the New World
Powell, J. F., & Neves, W. A. (1999) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-8644(1999)110:29+ · Cited by 194
Applied Evolutionary Psychology
(2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.001.0001 · Cited by 194
Biosociology of dominance and deference
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-3705 · Cited by 187
Game theory and animal behavior
Hammerstein, P. (1985) · Cited by 180
Alvard, M., & Nolin, D. A. (2002) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/341653 · Cited by 180
Practicing Compassion Increases Happiness and Self-Esteem
Mongrain, M., Chin, J. M., & Shapira, L. B. (2011) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9239-1 · Cited by 179
Promoting cooperation in the field
Kraft-Todd, G., Yoeli, E., Bhanot, S., & Rand, D. (2015) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.02.006 · Cited by 178
Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G. (2002) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00094-0 · Cited by 176
Altruism in social networks: Evidence for a ‘kinship premium’
Curry, O. S., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. (2012) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02119.x · Cited by 163
Self-citationActs of Kindness and Acts of Novelty Affect Life Satisfaction
Buchanan, K. E., & Bardi, A. (2010) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/00224540903365554 · Cited by 159
Cooperation and competition in chimpanzees: Current understanding and future challenges
Mitani, J. C. (2009) · Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews · doi:10.1002/evan.20229 · Cited by 156
Evolution of direct and indirect reciprocity
Roberts, G. (2007) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1134 · Cited by 154
Coalitions in theory and reality: a review of pertinent variables and processes
Bissonnette, A., Perry, S., Barrett, L., Mitani, J. C., Flinn, M. V., Gavrilets, S., & de Waal, F. Β. Μ. (2014) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003241 · Cited by 151
Feeling Good About Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable BehaviorPreprint
Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1444831 · Cited by 150
Nelson, S. K., Porta, M. D. D., Bao, K. J., Lee, H. C., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.983959 · Cited by 147
Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride
Sznycer, D., Al-Shawaf, L., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Curry, O. S., De Smet, D., Ermer, E., Kim, S., Kim, S., Li, N. P., Lopez Seal, M. F., et al. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1614389114 · Cited by 135
Self-citationAknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Sandstrom, G. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013) · International Journal of Happiness and Development · doi:10.1504/ijhd.2013.055643 · Cited by 132
Constituents of political cognition: Race, party politics, and the alliance detection system
Pietraszewski, D., Curry, O. S., Petersen, M. B., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.007 · Cited by 132
Self-citationEveryday prosociality in the workplace: The reinforcing benefits of giving, getting, and glimpsing.
Chancellor, J., Margolis, S., Bao, K. J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000321 · Cited by 131
Competitive Helping in Online Giving
Raihani, N., & Smith, S. S. (2015) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.042 · Cited by 124
Enhancing social relationships through positive psychology activities: a randomised controlled trial
O’Connell, B. H., O’Shea, D., & Gallagher, S. (2016) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1037860 · Cited by 121
Alden, L. E., & Trew, J. L. (2013) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0027761 · Cited by 120
Hublin, J. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0902614106 · Cited by 118
Kogan, A., Impett, E. A., Oveis, C., Hui, B. P. H., Gordon, A. M., & Keltner, D. J. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610388815 · Cited by 113
Altruism predicts mating success in humans
Arnocky, S. A., Piché, T., Albert, G. O., Ouellette, D., & Barclay, P. (2016) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12208 · Cited by 105
Ouweneel, E., Blanc, P. M. L., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.742854 · Cited by 104
Prosocial Bonuses Increase Employee Satisfaction and Team Performance
Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., Dunn, E. W., & Quoidbach, J. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075509 · Cited by 99
Game Theory and Animal Contests
Riechert, S. E. (1998) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195096927.003.0004 · Cited by 94
Evolution of Human Parental Behavior and the Human Family
Geary, D., & Flinn, M. (2001) · Parenting · doi:10.1207/s15327922par011&2_2 · Cited by 93
Is spending money on others good for your heart?
Whillans, A. V., Dunn, E. W., Sandstrom, G. M., Dickerson, S. S., & Madden, K. M. (2016) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000332 · Cited by 83
Cooperation and collective action in animal behaviour
Nunn, C. L., & Lewis, R. J. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752421.005 · Cited by 81
Meeting now suggests we will meet again: Implications for debates on the evolution of cooperation
Krasnow, M. M., Delton, A. W., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep01747 · Cited by 78
MetaForest: Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis using random forestsPreprint
Lissa, C. J. V. (2017) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/myg6s · Cited by 70
Why humans might help strangers
Raihani, N., & Bshary, R. (2015) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00039 · Cited by 68
Economics in nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets
Mulder, M. B. (2002) · American Journal of Human Biology · doi:10.1002/ajhb.10056 · Cited by 66
Genetic Evidence for Multiple Biological Mechanisms Underlying In-Group Favoritism
Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610387439 · Cited by 65
Coordination in Human and Primate Groups
Boos, M., Ellwein, T., Kappeler, P. M., & Kolbe, M. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15355-6 · Cited by 65
Chancellor, J., Layous, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9538-z · Cited by 65
World happiness report 2016 - update
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (2016) · Cited by 64
Social Recycling Transforms Unwanted Goods into Happiness
Donnelly, G. E., Lamberton, C. P., Reczek, R. W., & Norton, M. I. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/689866 · Cited by 56
Kindness reduces avoidance goals in socially anxious individuals
Trew, J. L., & Alden, L. E. (2015) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-015-9499-5 · Cited by 55
Calculated reciprocity? A comparative test with six primate species
Amici, F., Aureli, F., Mundry, R., Sánchez-Amaro, A., Barroso, A. M., Ferretti, J., & Call, J. (2014) · Primates · doi:10.1007/s10329-014-0424-4 · Cited by 53
The effects of giving on givers.
Konrath, S., & Brown, S. L. (2012) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/14036-003 · Cited by 53
Getting the most out of giving: Concretely framing a prosocial goal maximizes happiness
Rudd, M., Aaker, J. L., & Norton, M. I. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.002 · Cited by 51
The evolution of charitable behaviour and the power of reputation
Barclay, P. (2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.003.0010 · Cited by 40
Geenen, N., Hohelüchter, M., Langholf, V., & Walther, E. (2014) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.891154 · Cited by 39
Amazonian horticulturalists live in larger, more related groups than hunter–gatherers
Walker, R. S. (2014) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.05.003 · Cited by 38
Perspectives: Hamilton's Legacy: Mechanisms of Kin Recognition in Humans
Mateo, J. M. (2015) · Ethology · doi:10.1111/eth.12358 · Cited by 35
Health and social relationships: the good, the bad, and the complicated
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-0558 · Cited by 29
Adaptation and well-being : social allostasis
Schulkin, J. A. (2011) · Cited by 26
MetaForest: Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis using random forestsPreprint
Lissa, C. J. V. (2017) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/khjgb · Cited by 23
Can third-party observers detect the emotional rewards of generous spending?
Aknin, L. B., Fleerackers, A., & Hamlin, J. K. (2014) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.888578 · Cited by 22
Reactions to random acts of kindness
Baskerville, K., Johnson, K., Monk‐Turner, E., Slone, Q., Standley, H., Stansbury, S., Williams, M., & Young, J. L. (2000) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/s0362-3319(00)00062-8 · Cited by 22
An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective on Happiness
Hill, S. E., DelPriore, D. J., & Major, B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0065 · Cited by 18
Alvard, M. (2001) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195131390.003.0014 · Cited by 6
Tanimoto, J. (2015) · Evolutionary economics and social complexity science · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-54962-8_3 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Gardner, 2014, Special issue: Inclusive fitness; 50 years on, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 369
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effectiveness of positive psychology interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Carr, A., Cullen, K., Keeney, C., Canning, C., Mooney, O., Chinseallaigh, E., & O’Dowd, A. (2021) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2020.1818807 · Cited by 645
Aknin, L. B., De Neve, J.-E., Dunn, E. W., Fancourt, D. E., Goldberg, E., Helliwell, J. F., Jones, S. P., Karam, E., Layard, R., Lyubomirsky, S., et al. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916211029964 · Cited by 418
Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being.
Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000298 · Cited by 430
Sun, S., Goldberg, S. B., Lin, D., Qiao, S., & Operario, D. (2021) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/s12992-021-00663-x · Cited by 221
Fernández‐Castilla, B., Jamshidi, L., Declercq, L., Beretvas, S. N., Onghena, P., & Noortgate, W. V. D. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01373-9 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Bournemouth University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Curry, Oliver Scott
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 76
- Pages
- 320-329
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2776060271
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 143
- Citations by year
- 2026: 66 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 4.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (acceptedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- kindness.org (R46536/CN001)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Keywords
- acts of kindness, random acts of kindness, subjective well-being, altruism, prosocial behavior, happiness, individual differences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
