Does volunteering causally improve well-being? To empirically test this question, we examined one instantiation of volunteering that is common at post-secondary institutions across North America: community service learning (CSL). CSL is a form of experiential learning that combines volunteer work with intentional learning goals and active reflection. We partnered with an academic program that randomly assigns interested students to participate in a CSL program or to a wait-list. As part of this CSL program, students are required to engage in 10–12 h of formal volunteering each week in addition to completing related coursework. To assess the well-being benefits of formal volunteering through CSL participation, we examined the subjective wellbeing
(SWB) of students from both groups over a six-month period. Using Bayesian statistics, and comparing a null model to a model specifying a small to moderate benefit of CSL participation, we found conclusive evidence in support of the null model. These findings
diverge from previous correlational research in this area by providing no evidence for the causal benefits of volunteering on SWB. These findings highlight the critical importance of using experimental methodology to establish the causal benefits of volunteer work, such as the experiences provided by CSL programs, on SWB.
Whillans, A.V., S.C. Seider, R. Dwyer, L. Chen, S. Novick, K.J. Graminga, B.A. Mitchell, V. Savalei, S.S. Dickerson, and E.W. Dunn. "Does Volunteering Improve Well-being?"Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 1, nos. 1-3 (2016): 35–50.
Jaewon Yoon, Hayley Blunden, Ariella Kristal and A.V. Whillans
Conventional wisdom says you should ask your colleagues for feedback. However, research suggests that feedback often has no (or even a negative) impact on our performance. This is because the feedback we receive is often too vague—it fails to highlight what we can improve on or how to improve. New research suggests a better approach. Across four experiments—including a field experiment conducted in an executive education classroom—researchers found that people received more effective input when they asked for advice rather than feedback.
When making major life decisions—such as choosing what to do after graduation—is it better to prioritize time or money? In a pre-registered longitudinal study of 1,232 graduating university students, respondents who valued time over money chose more intrinsically rewarding activities and were happier one year after graduation. These results remained significant controlling for baseline happiness, potential confounds such as materialism and socioeconomic status, and when using alternative model specifications. These findings extend prior research by showing that the tendency to value time over money is not only predictive of daily consumer choices but also of major life decisions. Additionally, this research clarifies the direction of the observed associations between valuing time and money and happiness, showing that valuing time over money uniquely contributes to well-being, in part by encouraging intrinsic motivation. Together, this work sheds new light on whether, when, and how valuing time shapes happiness.
Jaewon Yoon, Hayley Blunden, Ariella Kristal and A.V. Whillans
When looking to improve workplace performance, people often seek third-party input by asking for feedback. However, we propose that asking for feedback might not be the most effective way of soliciting critical and actionable input. We offer a simple yet powerful alternative: ask for advice instead. Across four experiments (N=1,438), including a field experiment, we show that people offer more critical and actionable input when they are asked to provide advice (versus feedback)—even when they are asked to provide comments on identical output. When asked to provide feedback (versus advice), givers focus too much on evaluating the recipient, which undermines their ability to generate constructive (i.e. critical and actionable) input. Our findings suggest that framing feedback provision as advice provision may be a promising way of soliciting constructive third-party input.
