The Development of Gratitude in Guatemalan Children and Adolescents

Abstract

Expressing gratitude is central to the lives of Guatemalan youth. Despite limited empirical evidence on gratitude in Guatemala, anecdotal reports and cultural values point to its importance, providing a rich cultural context to continue Baumgarten-Tramer’s work. We have situated the current sample of 104 Guatemalan youth (M = 10.85, SD = 2.28, 53.8% girls) as autonomous and related using Kağıtçıbaşı’s framework, given their relatively advantaged socioeconomic status and the cultural importance of family. Participants’ responses to the Wishes and Gratitude Scale and the Imaginary Windfall resource distribution activity revealed that older children were more likely than younger children to express connective gratitude. Regardless of age, expressions of verbal gratitude were frequent, while concrete gratitude was extremely rare. Older participants were more likely to spend their hypothetical resources saving for the future; younger children’s resources were often allocated to buying gifts for others. These findings reflect both participants’ cultural and developmental contexts.

Keywords

gratitude child development adolescent development Guatemala culture

Guatemala is a country of youth. Nearly 60% of the country’s population is under the age of 25; thus, issues pertaining to child and adolescent development are of the utmost importance for the country’s present and future (Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], 2017). Also, exceptionally diverse Guatemala is Central America’s most populous country with approximately 16 million people (CIA, 2017). Although Spanish is the country’s official language, 22 indigenous Mayan languages, Xinka, and Garífuna are also spoken (Instituto Internacional de Aprendizaje para la Reconciliación Social [IIARS], n.d.). Diversity is also reflected in religious affiliation; Roman Catholicism is on the decline while Evangelical Protestantism is on the rise (Contreras Corzantes, 2015). Some Guatemalans continue to practice traditional Mayan beliefs either alone or in conjunction with their Catholic faith (Hart, 2008).

Described by Hofstede (1980) as the most collectivist country in the world, Guatemala is defined by a dedication to family and to the preservation of group harmony (Dries-Daffner, Hallman, Catino, & Berdichevsky, 2007). Given the criticisms of the individualism–collectivism continuum (Oyserman, Coons, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), Kağıtçıbaşı’s (2007) model of connectedness and agency may be more appropriate to understand cultural values. According to this theory, the connectedness dimension extends from relatedness to separation and the agency dimension extends from autonomy to heteronomy (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Given the prevalence of values centered on family and harmony, Guatemala is likely situated on the related end of the spectrum of interpersonal distance (Dries-Daffner et al., 2007).

Considering Kağıtçıbaşı and Ataca’s (2005) argument that autonomy is more pervasive among those with higher socioeconomic status, a great deal of within-country diversity likely exists on the agency dimension in Guatemala. This is due to the great economic disparity as measured by the GINI index (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2015). In 2011, Guatemala scored a 52.35 on the GINI index; out of 154 countries, Guatemala had the 14th highest rate of economic inequality (Index Mundi, n.d.). The demographic information collected from our sample (presented in more detail later) revealed that, although participants live in a rural area, most are being raised by highly educated, professional parents in households with considerable economic resources.

Furthermore, Kağıtçıbaşı (2005) posits that parents who embody the values of autonomy and relatedness value their children’s education and independent career choices, in part because they no longer depend on their children for economic contributions. This psychological interdependence model is common in traditional societies undergoing urbanization. And although the current sample does not live in an urban setting, it seems likely that the parents value education (as the participants are attending a private school) and the majority of the schools’ graduates continue on to university and lead professional careers. In sum, the Guatemalan children and adolescents who participated in this study would be best described as autonomous-related, according to Kağıtçıbaşı’s (2007) model.

The extant literature on Guatemalan youth supports the autonomous-related description of our sample. Relatedness was revealed in Guatemalan adolescents’ views of the ideal person as kind and honest (X. Flores, Gibbons, & Poelker, 2016; Gibbons, Stiles, Schnellmann, & Morales-Hidalgo, 1990). Moreover, they cited being spiritual (i.e., religious) and liking children as two central attributes of the ideal person (M. X. Flores Ramos, 2016; Gibbons & Stiles, 2004). A recent comparison of the ideals of urban Guatemalan adolescents with 25 years ago provides evidence that they have become more autonomous, valuing sexiness and fun (X. Flores et al., 2016).

With respect to gratitude, Guatemalan youth are frequently and intensely grateful (Poelker, Gibbons, Maxwell, & Elizondo Quintanilla, 2017). When asked to describe a recent gratitude experience, adolescents readily recalled instances of social support and assistance from friends, family, and teachers (Poelker et al., 2017). Reports of gratitude for material possessions were quite rare. In contrast to the U.S. youth, who focused on the benefit they received from the gratitude interaction and how it made them feel special, Guatemalan adolescents emphasized their reciprocal actions, including both direct and upstream reciprocity (McCullough, Kimeldorf, & Cohen, 2008; Poelker, Gibbons, Hughes, & Powlishta, 2016; Poelker et al., 2017). The gratitude experiences of Guatemalan adolescents can be summarized by the Latin American saying, “Hoy por ti, mañana por mi” [Today for you, tomorrow for me] (Remland, Jones, Foeman, & Rafter Arévalo, 2014, p. 203). Adolescents’ experiences of gratitude and reciprocity likely strengthen interpersonal relationships, helping them to feel supported, thereby fortifying their network of social support (Watkins, 2014). Guatemalan adolescents’ narratives are consistent with gratitude as a moral motivator, such that gratitude promotes future prosocial behavior (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001).

The current study’s three central hypotheses and the associated analyses are described fully in Tudge, Freitas, O’Brien, and Mokrova (2017). With respect to Hypothesis 1, we anticipate that after controlling for gender, older children will be more likely to express connective gratitude and less likely to express concrete gratitude than younger children. Verbal gratitude expression is expected across all ages. Regarding Hypothesis 2, after controlling for age and gender, we predict that hedonistic wishes will be related to concrete gratitude expression. In addition, socially/other-oriented wishes will be related to connective gratitude expression. Finally, concerning Hypothesis 3, after controlling for age and gender, we anticipate that socially-oriented wishes will be positively related to donating money to the poor and buying gifts for close others. Hedonistic and self-oriented wishes, on the contrary, will be positively associated with buying things for oneself or saving money for the future. See Merçon-Vargas, Poelker, and Tudge (2017) for the developmental framework used to construct these predictions.

Method

Participants

Guatemalan children and adolescents (N = 104) aged 7 to 14 years (M = 10.85, SD = 2.28, 53.8% girls) attending a private bilingual school in Guatemala’s southern coastal region participated in this study. The school is located near a town of approximately 60,000 people in a hot and humid region of the country, about 40 miles from Guatemala City, the country’s capital. The warm, tropical climate makes this region the heart of Guatemala’s sugarcane industry.

The demographic information was collected from parents when they signed the informed consent document. Nearly all (92.3%) were Ladino (of mixed indigenous and European descent). One identified as indigenous, eight as other/not specified, and two parents failed to report their child’s ethnicity. With respect to religion, 60.6% were Catholic. Despite living in a rural environment, most participants were from homes with highly educated parents and appreciable resources. For example, 34.6% of parents had a college or postgraduate degree and an additional 25.0% had some university education. These rates are much higher than national averages; in Guatemala, only 7.0% of Guatemalan men and 4.8% of women have some higher education (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo [PNUD], 2005). Of the 99 (76.74%) parents who reported an occupation, none reported manual labor. Most were engineers, doctors, teachers, or agronomists. Although the average household size in Guatemala is 5.9 people (ArcGIS, 2016), it was lower (4.55) for our participants. As a proxy for economic condition, parents were asked whether or not their household had certain objects or amenities. Nearly all families had electricity (97.1%), a cell phone (97.1%), a computer (98.1%), a bookshelf with books (98.1%), a television (98.1%), a microwave (87.5%), a refrigerator (98.1%), a stove (98.1%), a vehicle (91.3%), and a dishwasher (94.2%). Only 48.1% had a clothes dryer, which is considered a luxury appliance in Guatemalan households.

Materials and Procedure

This research project was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Saint Louis University. As described in more detail in Tudge et al. (2017), after obtaining parental consent and providing verbal assent, participants completed the Wishes and Gratitude Scale (WAGS; Freitas, Tudge, & McConnell, 2008). Wishes were classified as related to hedonistic desires, self well-being, or others’ well-being. Gratitude responses were coded as verbal, concrete, or connective. Participants completed the Imaginary Windfall activity (Tudge & Freitas, 2011) in which they were asked, how they would spend a hypothetical amount of money. Choices included spending the money on oneself, buying gifts for family and friends, donating it to the poor, or saving the money for the future. Finally, each participant was given a small gift as a token of appreciation.

Interrater Reliability

Cohen’s kappa was calculated as a measure of interrater reliability for approximately 25% of participants with respect to their wish and gratitude type. According to Landis and Koch (1977), agreement ranged from substantial to almost perfect agreement (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Interrater Reliability Analysis: Cohen’s Kappa.

Gratitude	Cohen’s kappa	Level of agreement
Verbal	.66	Substantial agreement
Concrete	.75	Almost perfect agreement
Connective	.80	Almost perfect agreement
Wish type
Hedonistic	.72	Substantial agreement
Self well-being	.91	Substantial agreement
Others’ well-being	.87	Almost perfect agreement

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics of the central variables of interest in the study are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The statistics pertaining to the two logistic regression analyses regarding gratitude types and wish types are presented in Table 2 and those relating to the liner regression analysis regarding spending preference are presented in Table 3.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics Regarding Wish Type and Gratitude Type by Gender.

Gratitude	Boys		Girls		Total
Gratitude	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Verbal	29	60.4	44	78.6	73	70.2
Concrete	7	14.6	4	7.1	11	10.6
Connective	17	35.4	25	44.6	42	40.8
Total	53	110.4	73	130.3	126	121.6
Wish type
Hedonistic	14	29.2	11	19.6	25	24.2
Self well-being	28	58.3	43	76.8	71	68.9
Others’ well-being	16	33.3	19	33.9	35	34.0
Total	58	120.8	73	130.3	131	127.1

Note. Percentages total more than 100% because participants were able to express more than one type of gratitude or wish.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics Regarding Age and Spending Preferences by Gender.

Variables	Boys		Girls		Total
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Age	10.83	2.23	10.87	2.34	10.85	2.28
Spending preferences
Buy for self	0.16	0.14	0.13	0.16	0.14	0.15
Gifts for others	0.14	0.17	0.14	0.15	0.14	0.16
Save	0.33	0.27	0.29	0.24	0.31	0.25
Give to charity/poor	0.38	0.25	0.43	0.28	0.41	0.26

Note. Spending preferences were calculated as proportions of the total amount of money given to the participants to “spend.”

Associations Among Gender, Age, and Wish Types on Gratitude Expression

To better understand the relations among age, gender, gratitude, and wish types, a series of three binomial logistic regressions were conducted. In each analysis, a different type of gratitude (verbal, concrete, and connective) served as the dependent variable. Gender and age were always entered into the first model with types of wish (hedonistic, self well-being, and social well-being) added in the second model. If significant results were revealed in Model 1, they are discussed in the text alongside the results revealed by Model 2. For additional information regarding Model 2 of each analysis, see Table 4.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Analyses of Age, Gender, and Wish Type on Types of Gratitude (N = 104).

	Gratitude types
	Verbal			Concrete			Connective
Predictor	B	SE B	e^B	B	SE B	e^B	B	SE B	e^B
Age	−0.08	0.12	0.92	0.84	0.69	2.32	0.27*	0.11	1.31
Gender	−0.96	0.47	0.38	0.84	0.17	0.87	−0.47	0.44	0.63
Wish type
Hedonistic	−0.39	0.68	0.68	−0.16	0.94	0.86	0.68	0.59	1.96
Self well-being	−0.41	0.71	0.66	−0.58	1.04	0.56	0.77	0.62	2.16
Social well-being	1.32*	0.64	0.28	0.68	0.89	1.96	0.64	0.54	1.90
Nagelkerke R²	.14			.07			16.29
χ²	10.05			3.78			8.82

Note. Gender coded boys = 1, girls = 2; Wish types coded no = 0, yes = 1. Reference group set to first for gender and all wish types. The table reflects Model 2 (Step 2) of each analysis. e^B = exponentiated B (beta).

p < .05.

Wishes related to social well-being emerged as the sole significant predictor of verbal gratitude, B = −1.32, e^B = 0.27, p = .039. In other words, children and adolescents who wished for the well-being of others were 3.70 times less likely to express verbal gratitude. We did not find any support for the hypotheses regarding age and expression of verbal gratitude. Not surprisingly, as only 11 of the Guatemalan children and adolescents expressed concrete gratitude, there were no significant predictors of concrete gratitude.

As for connective gratitude, participant age emerged as the sole significant predictor of connective gratitude in both Model 1, B = 0.21, e^B = 1.24, p = .025, and Model 2, B = 0.27, e^B = 1.31, p = .017. For every year increase in age, participants were 1.2 times more likely to express connective gratitude in Model 1 and 1.3 times more likely to express connective gratitude in Model 2. Neither gender nor the type of wish predicted the expression of connective gratitude.

Associations Among Age, Gender, Wish Types, and Spending Preference

To better understand the relations among gender, age, wish type, and spending preference, a series of four linear regression analyses were conducted. In each analysis, a different spending preference (buying things for oneself, buying gifts for others, donating to the poor, or saving the money) served as the dependent variable, controlling for gender and age (Model 1) and also controlling for wish types (hedonistic, self well-being, social well-being) in Model 2 (see Table 4). The four spending preference variables were calculated as a proportion of the total hypothetical spending allowance.

None among the gender, age, or type of wish significantly predicted spending money on oneself.

With respect to buying gifts for family and friends, age predicted the amount of money spent in Model 1, β = −.25, p = .014, such that younger participants were more likely than older ones to report spending their money on buying gifts for others. In Model 2, age remained a significant predictor, β = −.30, p = .012, but the overall regression model was not significant when the wish type was added to the analysis, F(5, 95) = 1.60, p = .170, adjusted R² = .031. Donating money to the poor showed the same pattern as for buying things for oneself; neither Model 1, F(2, 95) = 0.65, p = .525, adjusted R² = −.007, nor Model 2, F(5, 95) = 1.40, p = .233, adjusted R² = .021, revealed any significant predictors. As shown in Table 5, the children and adolescents spent the largest proportion of their money on donations to the poor. Finally, older participants were more likely than younger participants to indicate saving their money for the future. Although not significant in Model 1, age emerged as the sole significant predictor in Model 2, β = .28, p = .016.

Table 5.

Regression Analyses of Age, Gender, and Wish Type on Spending Preferences (n = 100).

Predictor	Buy for oneself			Gifts for others			Save			Give to charity/poor
Predictor	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Age	0.01	0.01	.15	−0.20	0.01	−.30*	−0.02	0.01	−.18	0.03	0.01	.28**
Gender	−0.03	0.03	−.09	0.02	0.03	.06	−0.04	0.05	−.08	0.06	0.05	.12
Wish type
Hedonistic	−0.04	0.04	−.10	0.02	0.04	.05	−0.08	0.07	−.14	0.09	0.07	.14
Self well-being	−0.02	0.04	−.05	0.03	0.05	.08	−0.00	0.07	−.00	−0.10	0.07	−.03
Others’ well-being	−0.01	0.04	−.02	0.05	0.04	.14	0.11	0.06	.21	−0.17	0.06	−.31
Adjusted R²	−.02			.03			.21			.09
F	0.70			1.60			1.40			2.95*

Note. Model 2 of analyses included in table.

p < .05.

Discussion

Guatemalan children and adolescents reported patterns that both converged with and diverged from the overall hypotheses (Tudge et al., 2018). As hypothesized, older participants more than younger expressed connective gratitude, the most sophisticated form of gratitude expression. This finding is consistent with a previous study in which the gratitude experiences of Guatemalan adolescents would have been coded as connective in that they readily incorporated their benefactor’s perspective when reciprocating the kindness that they had been shown (Poelker et al., 2017). Unlike our expectations, there were no age differences in concrete gratitude.

The limited research conducted with Guatemalan adolescents about gratitude provides some insight into why high rates of verbal and connective gratitude were reported and why concrete gratitude may have been virtually absent (Poelker et al., 2017). When asked, how participants (beneficiaries) responded to a benefactor when something kind was done on their behalf, a majority of adolescents reported verbal expression of thanks. The high rates of verbal gratitude both in this study and in the previous literature are supported by anecdotal evidence that suggests that frequent expression of gratitude is culturally valued and is viewed as a cultural norm (Poelker et al., 2017). For example, a common response to the question “How are you?” or “How is your family doing?” is “Very well—thanks to God!” Expressions like “muchísimas gracias” and “mil gracias” (a warm “thanks so much” and “a thousand thanks,” respectively) are often incorporated into verbal exchanges and although brief, at least acknowledge and attempt to verbally reciprocate one’s gratitude.

Guatemalan participants who reported a wish related to other’s well-being (a social wish) were less likely to express verbal gratitude compared with the other types of wishes. One possible interpretation is that wishes that are social or other-oriented may not be granted by a single person because the scope or magnitude of that wish (e.g., finding homes for all of Guatemala’s homeless dogs) may be too large a request to be carried out by a single benefactor. Instead, such wishes may be granted by a divine entity like God or other large groups that would make a verbal expression of thanks difficult.

With respect to the Imaginary Windfall, younger participants were more likely to spend their money on gifts for others, while older participants reported saving a larger proportion of money for the future. Both findings are consistent with participants’ respective developmental phases and their culture. Older adolescents are more future-oriented than younger adolescents and children (Steinberg et al., 2009). Thus, their inclination to think about their futures and what is to come emerges in their spending preferences. Guatemalan children’s decision to spend a larger proportion of their money on gifts for others compared with other alternatives reflects Guatemala’s collectivistic orientation (Hofstede, 1980) with an emphasis on relatedness Kağıtçıbaşı’s (2007). Less worried about the future than the here and now, Guatemalan children focused on showing their love and concern for close others by buying them gifts. In doing so, they maintained in-group harmony and close interpersonal connections, both of which are encouraged by collectivistic values (Dries-Daffner et al., 2007).

The findings also provide indirect support to situate this sample as autonomous-related (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005, 2007). The value of autonomy emerged in these responses in the diversity of wishes and types of gratitude expression. With respect to wishes, participants wrote about desires ranging from new cellular phones, to traveling abroad, to never being separated from their families. If heteronomy were valued, it seems likely that participants would express less variability in their responses in an effort to achieve the uniformity of a cultural or parental norm. The greater frequency of connective gratitude, which takes into account others’ preferences and desires, compared with concrete gratitude, which is more egocentric, suggests that relatedness is central for these youth. Many of the wishes were also socially oriented, privileging the needs of their family and local and global communities, revealing a desire for interconnectedness.

With respect to generalizing the results, these youth are not representative of Guatemalan children and adolescents. More specifically, the participants attend a private school, parents are highly educated and hold professional jobs. Furthermore, the country’s ethnic diversity is not captured by this sample, as nearly all participants identified as Ladino.

Conclusion

Guatemalan adolescents readily express their gratitude in one of two ways—verbal and connective. Concrete gratitude was virtually absent. With respect to wish types, Guatemalan youth most commonly reported wishes related to their own well-being like studying at university or acquiring a successful career. Socially oriented wishes, like finding a home for all of Guatemala’s street dogs or achieving peace in Syria, were also common. Furthermore, the socially oriented wishes were less likely to be accompanied by verbal gratitude expression than other wish types. Hedonistic wishes, particularly those that were materialistic in nature, were quite rare. The patterns that emerged reflect participants’ cultural and developmental contexts while providing compelling areas for future study.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Katelyn E. Poelker is assistant professor of psychology at Hope College in Holland, MI, USA. Her research is focused on the social and emotional development of youth in a cultural context. In particular, she has conducted research recently on adolescent gratitude and envy both in the United States and in Guatemala. Other areas of interest and publication include adolescent well-being, at-risk youth, and women’s empowerment.

Judith L. Gibbons is a professor emerita of psychology at Saint Louis University. She is the founding editor of the American Psychological Association Division 52 journal International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, an associate editor of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, a former president of the Interamerican Society of Psychology (SIP) and the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, and a former Fulbright scholar at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. Her research interests include adolescent development in the majority world, especially in Guatemala, intercountry adoption, and gender roles. She has published over 100 journal articles and chapters and three books, The Thoughts of Youth, Intercountry Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes, and Women’s Evolving Lives: Global and Psychosocial Perspectives.

References

ArcGIS. (2016). Guatemala average household size. Retrieved from https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=552349f52ce34af2a51f5f59374aca41

Central Intelligence Agency. (2017). Guatemala. In The World Factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gt.html

Contreras Corzantes

. (2015, May 31). Catolicos superan por poco a evangélicos [Catholics narrowly outnumber evangelicals]. Prensa Libre. Retrieved from http://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/comunitario/catolicos-evangelicos-cifras-encuesta

Dries-Daffner

Hallman

Catino

Berdichevsky

(2007). Guatemala. In Arnett

J. J.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of adolescence (Vol. 1, pp. 370-380). New York, NY: Routledge.

Flores Ramos

M. X

. (2016). Visiones de adolescentes guatemaltecos urbanos acerca de la espiritualidad como dimensión de la persona ideal [Urban Guatemalan adolescents’ views about spirituality as a dimension of the ideal person] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad del Valle de Guatemala.

Flores

Gibbons

J. L.

Poelker

K. E.

(2016). Fun and sexy, but less responsible: Guatemalan adolescents’ ideals 25 years later. Psychology and Developing Societies, 28, 226-250. doi:10.1177/0971333616657172

Freitas

L. B. L.

Tudge

J. R. H.

McConnell

(2008). The Wishes and Gratitude Survey (Unpublished questionnaire). Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.

Gibbons

J. L.

Stiles

D. A.

(2004). The thoughts of youth: An international perspective on adolescents’ ideal persons. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Gibbons

J. L.

Stiles

D. A.

Schnellmann

J. G.

Morales-Hidalgo

(1990). Images of work, gender, and social commitment among Guatemalan adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 89-103. doi:10.1177/0272431690101006

10.

Hart

(2008). The ancient spirituality of the modern Maya. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

11.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

12.

Index Mundi. (n.d.). GINI index (World Bank estimate) country rating. Retrieved from http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings

13.

Instituto Internacional de Aprendizaje para la Reconciliación Social. (n.d.). Conceptos para entender las relaciones étnicas en Guatemala: Por qué estamos como estamos? [Concepts for understanding the ethnical relations in Guatemala: Why are we how we are?]. Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica.

14.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implication for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422. doi:10.1177/00220222105275959

15.

Kağıtçıbaşı

(2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

16.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Ataca

(2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 317-337. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00213.x

17.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363-374. doi: 10.2307/2529786

18.

McCullough

M. E.

Kilpatrick

S. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larson

D. B.

(2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249-266. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249

19.

McCullough

M. E.

Kimeldorf

M. B.

Cohen

A. D.

(2008). An adaptation for altruism? The social causes, social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 281-285. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00590.x

20.

Merçon-Vargas

E. A.

Poelker

Tudge

J. R. H.

(2018). The development of the virtue of gratitude: Theoretical foundations and cross-cultural issues. Cross-Cultural Research, 52, 3–18.

21.

Oyserman

Coons

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3

22.

Poelker

K. E.

Gibbons

J. L.

Hughes

H. M.

Powlishta

K. K.

(2016). Feeling grateful and envious: Adolescents’ narratives of social emotions in identity and social development. International Journal of Adolescents and Youth, 21, 289-303. doi:10.1080/02673843.2015.1067895

23.

Poelker

K. E.

Gibbons

J. L.

Maxwell

Elizondo Quintanilla

I. L.

(2017). Envy, gratitude, and well-being among Guatemalan adolescents with scarce economic resources. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 6, 209–226. doi: 10.1037/ipp0000076

24.

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (2005). Diversidad étnico-cultural: La ciudanía en un Estado plural [Ethnic-cultural diversity: Citizenship in a plural state]. Guatemala City, Guatemala: Author.

25.

Remland

M. S.

Jones

T. S.

Foeman

Rafter Arévalo

(2014). Intercultural communication: A peacebuilding perspective. Long Grove, IL: Wavland Press.

26.

Steinberg

Graham

O’Brien

Woolard

Cauffman

Banich

(2009). Age differences in future orientation and delay discounting. Child Development, 80, 28-44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01244.x

27.

Tudge

J. R. H.

Freitas

L. B. L.

(2011). The Imaginary Windfall (Unpublished questionnaire). Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.

28.

Tudge

J. R. H.

Freitas

L. B. L.

O’Brien

Mokrova

I. L.

(2018). Methods for studying the virtue of gratitude cross-culturally. Cross-Cultural Research, 52, 19–30.

29.

United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Human development report 2015: Work for human development. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report_1.pdf

30.

Watkins

P. C.

(2014). Gratitude and the good life: Toward a psychology of appreciation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.