Although implementation-intention research has amassed strong evidence that a simple “if X, then Y” plan boosts individual behaviour, from exercising to studying, fewer than five percent of those studies have tested the strategy in live, two-party negotiations. Conversely, negotiation research shows that strategic question-asking and high-quality listening reliably raise joint value and rapport, yet those micro-skills tend to vanish under pressure because negotiators forget to deploy them. No published experiment has ever embedded a communication micro-skill inside an implementation intention (e.g., “If my counterpart anchors low, then I will ask what else matters and paraphrase”) and then measured negotiation outcomes such as joint gain, information exchange and relationship quality. This project aims to fill that gap by combining the automation power of implementation intentions with the high leverage of diagnostic questions and empathic listening.

PS379 Negotiation gone wrong

 

Negotiation Master Simulator

Negotiation Master Game: https://lucmekouar.github.io/PS379-Project-Negotiation-and-Influence-/ 

The code scripts for our game can be found here: Negotiation Master

Video demonstration Link:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pjwnn7Zr7A4xaaoyJSQOmma9JlSxm_5X/view?usp=sharing 

The Power of Asking: Behavioural Influence in Action

 

(WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE TO EXPLORE HOW STRATEGIC QUESTIONING TRANSFORMS INFLUENCE, NEGOTATION AND TRUST)

Summary of the Video:

This video aims to explore how asking questions is in fact a powerful tool that can be exerted for influence, negotiation and behavioural change. Through exploring psychological research by Flynn and Lake (2008), Huang et al. (2017), Hills' ABC Model, and many other psychological concepts, the video emphasises the idea that asking builds trust, captures attention and is a driving force for cooperation. In the final segment, these ideas are brought to life by exploring the power of asking questions as a new team member at a new role. The overall message is clear, asking questions, typically regarded as a soft skill, isn't that, instead, it is a scientifically grounded strategy.

Extended Analysis on the Power of Asking Questions

This section will explore the experimental evidence that supports and extends on the psychological theories that the video brought forwards.

One of the key findings in this area of psychology is that asking follow-up questions specifically, plays a pivotal role in increasing interpersonal likeability. Huang et al. (2017), in a series of experiments, examined question-asking across various real-life scenarios. The study we are focusing on consisted of participants taking part in speed-dating conversations. It was found that those who asked a greater amount of follow-up questions, were typically significantly more likely to be selected for a second date. The paper argues that follow up questions signal active listening and genuine interest, as such, they allow for a stronger connection in social and professional contexts (Huang et al., 2017).

Furthermore, as mentioned in the video, in everyday life, due to fear of rejection people hold back from asking for help. However, in Flynn and Lake (2008), this was disproved. A series of experiments exposed that people consistently underestimate how likely others are to say 'yes' when asked for help. Flynn and Lake (2008) obtained the results, "the first 3 studies, people underestimated by as much as 50% the likelihood that others would agree to a direct request for help."

This could be as a result of egocentric bias, this is what the researchers believe. We focus on our own awkwardness and based off this we neglect social norms that drive others to comply, majority of people are socially conditioned to help. Many people say yes out of politeness, not due to being deeply motivated. The power of asking lies not just in the question itself, but in overcoming the misplaced fear of refusal.

One of the most compelling explanations for the effectiveness of asking questions comes from B.F. Skinner's (2005) work, the ABC model of influence: Attention, Behaviour and Consequence, as mentioned in the video. While Skinner defined A as 'Antecedent', it has the same general idea. You must capture the attention of the person you are asking the question, prompt a behavioural response and then reinforce that action through a positive consequence, such as trust or respect or cooperation. Indeed, as Skinner  notes, "what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions" (2005, p.6). Here, the idea that strategic questioning isn't just a soft skill is highlighted, rather, it's a behavioural idea that influences interactions.

Edmonson (1999) further supports the power that asking questions possesses. In this paper, an empirical study was conducted involving 51 manufacturing teams, Edmondson found that teams with higher levels of psychological safety, a shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, were significantly more likely to engage in learning behaviours, such as asking for help or seeking feedback. The study showed that psychological safety predicted these behaviours even when controlling for team efficacy, and that learning behaviour fully mediated the relationship between psychological safety and team performance. Thus, this is further proof that asking questions isn't only for exchanging information, it fosters an environment in which one can learn, it is a catalyst for performance. 

To conclude, the video's overall argument, that asking questions is a powerful tool for influence, is an argument that is firmly supported by psychological research. It increases likeability, helps in overcoming egocentric biases, and shapes behaviour through reinforcement and encourages learning cooperatively. It is not a passive gesture, but a strategic mechanism for building trust and achieving more effective interactions.

Reflection 

Asking questions strategically is a skill that spans across leadership, teamwork, education and policy. The power it possesses doesn't lie in the extraction of answers, but in the space that the questions create. This space is inhabited by cooperation, trust and shared problem-solving. 

Something to think about: How could you use questioning to build influence in your own environment? What ethical lines should we consider when using psychology to persuade?

References

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Flynn, F. J., & Lake, V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128

Hills, T.T. (expected 2023). The ABCs of behavioral influence. In G. Progrebna and T. T. Hills (Eds) The Handbook of Behavioral and Data Science. Cambridge University Press.

Hills, T. (2025). If You Want More Out of Life, Just Ask. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/statistical-life/201402/if-you-want-more-out-

life-just-ask

Huang, et al. (2017). It doesn't hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Psycnet.apa.org. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpspi0000097

Skinner, B. (2005). SCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR. https://www.behaviorpedia.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/Science_and_Human_Behavior.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Hills,

 

Negotiating with Nukes: Infographic

The Importance of Negotiation Training in Hostage Crisis

The Importance of Negotiation Training in Hostage Crisis

By Charlie Gray, Jasmine Guard & Veronika Ivanova

Many of us will have seen hostage scenes in films and television shows; Die Hard, Money Heist, and Speed, just to name a few. But what happens when a hostage situation arises in real life? Over the years, the field of hostage negotiation has become increasingly established, but it was not always a part of hostage situations. Before the 1970s, it was the responsibility of SWAT teams/the FBI to handle hostage negotiations, who often responded with aggression, resulting often with tragic outcomes. (Wilson, 2024).  

One such hostage situation happened in October 1971, in which the FBI responded to a plane hijacking. Initially, two people safely left the plane, but after the FBI forcibly intervened by shooting at the plane, the incident resulted in the hijacker shooting and killing two hostages, his wife and the pilot, as well as fatally wounding himself (Mijares & Jamieson, 2005). In the post-incident litigation filed by the pilot’s wife, the United States Court of Appeals concluded that there was a “better suited alternative” to the approach that the FBI took, and that they had turned “what had been a successful ‘waiting game’ … into a ‘shooting match’ that left three persons dead”. (Hatcher et al., 1988). This specific incident has been described as influencing the development of training for hostage negotiations, as a “glaring example of everything not to do in a hostage event” (Mijares & Jamieson, 2005).  

Following on from this incident, and others, the NYPD began to establish hostage negotiation as a discipline around 1973 (Conlon, 2018), which led to law enforcement focusing on de-escalation and reducing confrontation for the first time (Noesner, 2024). Bolz (1979), who was partially responsible for the reform of hostage negotiation in the NYPD, described this as a “negotiate first” policy. In 1993, after hostage negotiation technique had become more widespread and developed, it was found that 75% of hostage incidents were resolved by surrender being negotiated, whilst 10% of incidents resulted in the perpetrator losing their life though lethal force or suicide, and only 3% of hostage incidents resulted in death to a hostage at the hands of the perpetrator (Butler et al., 1993).

Hostage negotiation is a situation where human lives are traded as currency to fulfill the hostage taker’s aim. Due to its nature, the situation is very delicate but provides the unique opportunity to build value (Faure, 2003). In most cases, the hostage taker is not interested in the people they are keeping but the reimbursement they might get (unless it is a double hostage taker situation). This can include money, services (such as getting a car to be driven away) and status (usually in political situations) (Cooper, 1981). In the following examples, we will explore how building value works. 

The Iranian Hostage crisis (Britannica, 2025) was preceded by a number of political conditions that made the negotiation incredibly difficult. The build up of the Cold War that had made Iran a desired location for both - the Soviet Union and the US due to its natural resources had caused tensions to rise. The overwhelming US ambition to overtake the region and their support of the Shah culminated in revolutionary actions (1978-79). The Iranians blamed the US for supporting the oppressive governance of the Shah when they admitted him for medical treatment within the western country. From here, two Iranian groups were formed - Moderates that wanted to keep good political relations with countries (including the US) and Hardliners that desired to break away from the US pressures. This set up a tense environment which nurtured multiple Iranian protests in front of the US Embassy and ultimately led to the taking of hostages.

On 22nd October 1979 the US Embassy was attacked and occupied by Iranian Hardliners and 66 members of staff were taken as hostages. This created a political hostage negotiation situation that lasted 444 days. Firstly, it is important to understand the demands of the two sides:

The US: Immediate release of the unharmed hostages

Iran: The return of the Shah for his official trial, Removal of US pressures

From this, it is evident that the two groups want different things out of this negotiation which at first look may seem like an easy thing to be resolved…Iran should release the hostages and the US should let the Shah back into Iran and let them handle their own governance. However, in addition to their demands, the US was still leading a political war and Iran was in the middle of it. So this is how a series of complicated negotiations began. US's first attempt at rapport building was when they allowed Iran to make financial claims against the Shah in the US and his reign can be investigated if the hostages are returned. On their turn Iran reinstated their demand for independence from the pressures from the US, the return of the Shah and having all his positions reported as stolen property. Due to the lack of cooperation, the US refused to support the Iranian economy by stopping the purchase of Iranian oil and leading foreign diplomacy encouraging its supporting countries to do the same as well as involving the UN security Council. These actions aimed to make the Iranian BATNA worse and weaken its resources. They seemed to be the right type of pressure as Iran released all the women, African Americans and a gravely ill hostage as they seemed least likely to be spies. Despite this, negotiations came to stagnation which led the US to send a military operation that was not successful due to malfunction of some of the aircrafts leading to public humiliation of the country on Iranian news channels. Finally, in 1980 after the change of US government and the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the hostages were released as the Iranian economy was strained due to the embargo. 

The other case we are going to consider includes the hostages as an active part of the negotiation process. In 1973, Sweden (McKevitt, 2024) an escaped convicted criminal Jan-Eric Olson went to rob a bank in broad daylight and took four hostages as his plan failed and the police arrived quickly at the scene. As this was not a common occurrence in Sweden, negotiation the teams did not have the experience. Olson opened fire,injuring a police officer and asking another to sit on a chair and sing a song. From this it is clear that he was not in the best mental state but he had his demands:

Olson’s demands: Bring his friend Clark Olofsson, with three million Swedish kronor, two guns, bulletproof vests, helmets and a Ford Mustang

The police brought Olofsson to the scene who created a bond with the hostages which led to the hostages fearing the police and protecting their takers. Upon an attempt for negotiation Olson threatened the PM that he’ll hurt the hostages if his wishes are not granted. On the next day Enmark, a hostage, called the PM to show her disappointment in the PM’s inaction to release both - the hostages and hostage takers. She had also stated that she trusts Olofsson and the bank robber  and feels safe with them. Due to the lack of information about what the situation looked like, the police drilled a hole in the wall to send a camera which led to more police officers being injured. Olson called angrily to state that if any gas attack was attempted he will hurt the hostages but despite this the police planned an attack which led to the capture of the hostage taker. The hostages were hesitant to exit first as they feared for the health of Olofsson and Olson and when the two hostage takers finally left, one of the male hostages received a handshake and two of the female ones went to hug Olofsson. This case presented an unusual bond between hostages and hostage takers which was later named Stockholm Syndrome. 

From these examples, it is evident that sometimes force is necessary, while  in other cases tactical political moves are more important. The lessons learned are that in a hostage crisis all actions need to be well thought of in order to avoid rushed military actions (Iranian hostage crisis) and fulfilling risky hostage taker demands (Swedish robbery). This is achieved through using proper negotiation techniques.

Tactics 

Each hostage negotiation will be unique due to the numerous situational factors that might apply, which makes it difficult to recommend a set of negotiation techniques as universally applicable to every hostage negotiation (Grubb, 2010; Steven et al., 2025). Despite this, there have been numerous models detailing how to conduct a hostage negotiation, each with their own strategies (Grubb, 2010). It is important to consider what strategies to use because choosing the wrong approach may put the lives of hostages at risk, this being an outcome hostage negotiators fundamentally want to avoid (Stokoe et al., 2022). Therefore, the aim of the discussion below is to address three potential techniques from the literature that a hostage negotiator might use, in addition to explaining why these strategies are effective in hostage negotiations.

First, we will discuss active listening as a strategy for hostage negotiation. Active listening is central to the FBI’s Behavioural Influence Stairway Model (BISM), emphasizing the importance of not just understanding what the hostage taker is saying but conveying a continued interest in listening (Grubb, 2010; Vecchi et al., 2005). This is how active listening can be effective in a hostage negotiation, because the hostage negotiator is able to both gather intelligence and develop rapport by showing they value what the hostage taker has to say. Evidence of this can be seen in the interviews conducted by Charlés (2007) with the hostage negotiation team involved in resolving a school shooting situation. To understand why, it should first be mentioned that through active listening, the hostage negotiator learnt that the motivation behind the actions of the hostage taker was his failure to graduate from the high school, resulting in him losing his job and girlfriend. In response to learning that the hostage taker valued his education, the hostage negotiator was able to promise that in exchange for surrender, the hostage taker would be able to continue his education in prison, terms the hostage taker accepted (Charlés, 2007). Here we can see that through actively listening, the hostage negotiator was able to learn contextually relevant information and use this to negotiate a resolution with the hostage taker (Stokoe et al., 2022). Therefore, we can see that in addition to gathering intel, through active listening hostage negotiators can encourage hostage takers to value their collaborative relationship and continue this to reach a resolution.

Another technique useful in hostage negotiations is positive labelling. Referring to the self-fulfilling prophecy theory, labelling is the process of assigning characteristics to an individual which they in turn are more likely to internalise and behave in a manner consistent with that characteristic (Madon et al., 2011; Bernburg, 2019). This is applicable to hostage negotiation through positive labelling, wherein the hostage negotiator used positive language to label the hostage taker (Knowles, 2016). This is important because according to the self-fulfilling prophecy, by using positive labels the hostage taker should be made to feel better about themselves, so to keep feeling good about themselves the hostage taker is more likely to want to continue to behave in a way that aligns with this label. Considering this, positive labelling can become an effective technique for hostage negotiators as they can influence the behaviour of the hostage takers to behave in a way that minimises the risk of danger to hostages (Knowles, 2016).

Finally, the last technique to be discussed is the Foot-in-the-Door compliance technique. According to Freedman and Fraser (1966), the Foot-in-the-Door technique requires an individual to first ask another for smaller and more realistic requests so that the individual being asked is more likely to accept them. Following this, the individual making the requests can gradually begin to make greater requests, working towards their larger goals, and yet the individuals who have accepted the previous requests are more likely to continue to accept them (Howe, 1993). This technique is applicable in hostage negotiation because according to the self-perception account, when the hostage taker accepts the first request, they view themselves as helpful, but when the hostage taker then rejects further requests a cognitive dissonance is created which can only be resolved by accepting more requests (Grubb, 2023; Knowles, 2016). Furthermore, if the hostage taker has more personal involvement in these repeated requests, the more likely they are to comply (Burger, 1999). A good application of the Foot-in-the-Door technique could be to ask the hostage taker questions about possible violence indicators, variables that predict violent behaviour that could harm the hostages such as whether any weapons are in the vicinity (Knowles, 2016). By directly involving the hostage taker in these smaller requests, the hostage negotiator can continue to foster a collaborative relationship with the hostage taker by making more requests that aim to protect the hostages from harm. From this we can see that hostage negotiators can use the Foot-in-the-Door technique to elicit both intel from the hostage taker and to minimise the risk of harm to the hostages.

Overall, these hostage negotiation techniques aim to build rapport with the hostage taker, creating value in maintaining this collaborative relationship with the hostage negotiator. As a result, the hostage taker is more likely to comply with behaviour that is less likely to harm the hostages, achieving a fundamental goal of a hostage situation without the risks associated with a tactical response.

 

QUIZ

Now that you've learned about some of the techniques used in hostage negotiation, lets see how you'd do as a hostage negotiator! In these questions, a man has taken multiple hostages at a bank, and it is your job to negotiate with him...

1. You have established a line of communication between yourself (the negotiator) and the hostage taker. He has begun to make demands, what would the best approach be at this stage?

        a. Interrupt him to ask if he has any weapons.

        b. Ask the hostage taker follow-up questions about what he has said to learn more information.

        c. Tell him that he should give up now as the police are on their way.

2. What kind of relationship should you aim for with the hostage taker?

        a. The hostage taker must recognise that you have authority over them.

        b. You must appear cold and aloof, so it doesn't seem like you are becoming emotional.

        c. The hostage taker should feel as though they can trust you.

3. Early in the negotiation, you are trying to build compliance. What would the best first request be?

        a. Demand that the hostage taker releases all of the hostages immediately.

        b. Ask him if he can confirm that everyone inside is unharmed.

        c. Insist that he gives up his weapons.

4. The hostage taker has released one hostage. What should you do to reinforce this behaviour?

        a. Tell him that he is a reasonable and caring person for making that decision.

        b. Ignore it and stay neutral to continue negotiations.

        c. Insist that he gives up his weapons.

5. Through communication with the hostage taker, it becomes clear that he feels betrayed by the people in his life. How would you respond to this?

        a. Let him talk more about it and show that you're interested in what he has to say.

        b. Try and change the subject to avoid him getting more emotional about it.

        c. Tell him that it doesn't excuse his behaviour.

Answers

1)        B – Asking the hostage taker questions about what they have already said demonstrates to them that you are actively listening to them.

2)        C – It is important to build rapport, and if the hostage taker feels as though they can trust you they are more likely to respect what you say.

3)        B – A request like this is a way to use the foot-in-the-door technique, as it is easy and the hostage taker is unlikely to say no.

4)        A – This is utilising positive labelling, telling the hostage taker that they have these positive traits mean that they are more likely to continue to behave in a way that aligns with this label.

5)        A – This demonstrates active listening, and additionally it can allow you to gather intel that could help to find a way to reach a resolution.

References 

Bernburg, J. G. (2019). Labeling Theory. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. Penly Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 179-196). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_10

Britannica. (2025). Iran hostage crisis. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-hostage-crisis/Conflict-and-resolution

Bolz, F. A. (1979). Hostage confrontation and rescue. Terrorism: Threat, Reality, Response, 204, 393.

Burger, J. M. (1999). The Foot-in-the-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_2

Butler, W. M., Leiteberg, H., & Fuselier, G. D. (1993). The use of mental health professional consultants to police hostage negotiation teams.  Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 11(2), 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370110210

Charlés, L. L. (2007). Disarming people with words: Strategies of interactional communication that crisis (hostage) negotiators share with systemic clinicians. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17520606.2007.00006.x

Conlon, E. (2018, November 9). “Talk to me:” The NYPD Hostage Negotiation Team. NYPD. https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/f1108/-talk-me-nypd-hostage-negotiation-team#/0

Cooper, H. H. A. (1981). Hostage-takers. NCJRS Virtual Library. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/hostage-takers#:~:text=The%20seven%20distinct%20categories%20of,fanatics%2C%20and%20mentally%20disturbed%20persons

Faure, G. O. (2003). Negotiating with Terrorists: The Hostage Case. International Negotiation, 8(3), 469-494. https://0-doi-org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552

Grubb, A. (2010). Modern day hostage (crisis) negotiation: The evolution of an art form within the policing arena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 341-348. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.002

Grubb, A. R. (2023). Effective Police Negotiation: Synthesising the Strategies and Techniques that Promote Success Within Hostage or Crisis Situations. In M. S. Staller, S. Koerner, & B. Zaiser (Eds.), Police Conflict Management, Volume I: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century (pp. 285-314). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41096-3_12

Hatcher, C., Mohandie, K., Turner, J., & Gelles, M. G. (1998). The role of the psychologist in crisis/hostage negotiations. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 16(4), 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199823)16:4%3C455::AID-BSL321%3E3.0.CO;2-G

Howe, J. E., "Voluntary Consent to Police Searches: A Result of the Foot-In-The-Door Technique" (1993). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. William & Mary. Paper 1539625845. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-hhqw-tn55

Knowles, G. J. (2016). Social psychological dynamics of hostage negotiation: forensic psychology, suicide intervention, police intelligence/counterintelligence, and tactical entry. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 6(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-01-2016-0001

Madon, S., Willard, J., Guyll, M., & Scherr, K. C. (2011). Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Mechanisms, Power, and Links to Social Problems. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(8), 578-590. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00375.x

McKevitt, G. (2024). “the one thing we’re all afraid of is going insane” – Stockholm syndrome and the art of hostage negotiation. BBC Culture. https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20240815-stockholm-syndrome-and-the-art-of-hostage-negotiation  

Mijares, T. C., & Jamieson, J. D. (2005). Case history: Downs v. United States. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 5(1), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1300/J173v05n01_08

Noesner, G. (2024, August 6). Fifty years of FBI crisis (hostage) negotiation. LEB. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/fifty-years-of-fbi-crisis-hostage-negotiation

Pace, S. A., Kennedy, L. P., Healy, T., Laughlin, J. S., & Benning, S. D. (2025). Predictors of Successful Resolutions and Avoidance of Harms in Crisis Negotiations: An Analysis of the FBI’s HOBAS Database from 1982 to 2023. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-025-09738-6

Stokoe, E., Sikveland, R. O., & Hamann, M. G. T. (2022). Preparing to talk: Behind-the-scenes planning between negotiators for subsequent communication with persons in crisis. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 113-127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.018

Vecchi, G. M., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Romano, S. J. (2005). Crisis (hostage) negotiation: current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(5), 533-551. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2004.10.001

Wilson, R. L. (2024). Hostage negotiations. Retrieved from EBSCO: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/hostage-negotiations

The Kindness Revolution: 3 students, 1 mission.

Introduction

The term "subjective well-being" (SWB) describes how individuals think about and evaluate their life. It is well documented in the literature that subjective well-being is positively related to income (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010; Lindqvist et al., 2020; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2013). Even so, certain research has revealed weaknesses in this established association. For example, Jebb et al. (2018) have identified income thresholds for subjective well-being- specifically life evaluation, positive affect, and negative affect; beyond which higher incomes no longer increase well-being. For example, the life evaluation threshold ranged from $40,000 in some regions to $105,000 in others. It also depends on where your income is moving up from, where Diener and Biswas-Diener (2002) found that increasing income is unlikely to significantly improve subjective wellbeing for middle-class and upper-class individuals in economically developed countries. Not to mention, people's aspirations tend to increase in tandem with increases in their income (Binswanger, 2006), creating a discrepancy, called the ‘hedonic treadmill’ (Brickman, 1971). This can eventually cause happiness to stagnate. 

There are other ways to improve the SWB of individuals. For example, humans are able to derive emotional benefits from simply spending money on others. This type of behaviour is called prosocial spending. When participants chose the option to donate money as well as to recall instances when they had spent money on others, Aknin et al. (2013) found participants reporting greater levels of happiness than when they spent money on themselves. This effect was observed in nations with varying economic climates and cultural backgrounds. According to Hill & Howell (2014), the primary reason behind this effect is concern for others rather than a lack of concern for oneself. Akinin et al (2013) concluded that this helping behaviour effect was a psychological universal. The rest of the research base certainly supports this assertion, where improvements in the SWB of adults and adolescents due to prosocial activity has been found both at the between-person level, which describes when we compare prosocial conduct across individuals, (Aknin et al., 2020; Titova & Sheldon, 2021) and at the within-person level (Gregori et al, 2024), describing when individuals increase their level of prosocial behaviour beyond their typical conduct.

There have been many explanations as to why this effect is observed. From an evolutionary standpoint, the emotional benefit from helping others might have evolved as a mechanism to promote greater prosociality. Although this kind of behaviour could have short-term consequences, it would on the whole, benefit our long-term survival (Akin et al, 2013). This would be through helping the greater good of the group and increasing the likelihood of reciprocal kindness (Curry et al., 2018). Chen (2024) in a systematic review, proposed that prosocial behaviour improved SWB because it satisfied one or more of our basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness). For example, prosocial conduct satisfies our competence needs when people are aware of the beneficial impact their helpful behaviour has on the recipient. 

Have non-monetary prosocial behaviours been shown to have the same positive impact on SWB? Most of the research in this area has examined whether formal volunteering can enhance our SWB (Tabassum et al., 2016). In particular, the positive impact this type of prosocial activity has on the SWB of older individuals (Jiang et al., 2018). Nevertheless, sporadic research has been conducted with younger populations. For example, Kim and Morgül (2017) found an association between youth volunteering and psychological well-being in adulthood. Moreover, Layous et al. (2012) found significant improvements to life satisfaction, happiness and positive affect in schoolchildren when they engaged in acts of kindness. However, there is discussion over whether this prosociality benefit can be attributed to social connectedness. That being said, Martela and Ryan (2016) discovered that even in the absence of face-to-face connection, benevolent acts can still improve well-being. In addition, Miles et al. (2022) found small, lasting benefits to emotional wellbeing when participants performed 3 acts of prosociality a week amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. 

In this project, we drew upon research conducted by Lyubomirsky and colleagues (2004). Over six weeks, college students completed five acts of kindness per week as part of a happiness-based intervention. Other condition groups included students who completed no acts of kindness and students who completed all of their acts of kindness for a week in a single day. Our project's research question was whether engaging in a variety of prosocial activities would result in similar observed improvements to SWB. Our time scale was set at 2 weeks, with 14 total acts of kindness performed in both experimental conditions. The intent behind the reduced time scale was to determine whether the effect on SWB might still be acquired after only a short period of prosocial involvement. Research suggests that the benefit of prosocial activity on wellbeing, specifically formal volunteering, could plateau if overdone (Yang, 2020). 

Each condition was completed by a single individual under the age of 25. Currently there is a lack of research investigating the benefit prosociality, particularly volunteering, has on the wellbeing of young adult populations (Stuart et al., 2020). We were able to contribute to this gap in the literature. Three measures of subjective wellbeing—positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, and subjective happiness—were measured to gauge each person's level of SWB. We predicted that across all three measures of SWB , each participant's scores would be greater in the 2 prosociality conditions, compared to the control (Hypothesis 1). We also predicted that wellbeing scores would be greater in the 7 acts of kindness in one day condition compared to the 1 acts of kindness each day condition (Hypothesis 2). This was predicted due to the findings from Lyubomirksy et al. (2004), who discovered that participants' wellbeing only improved when they completed all of their weekly acts of kindness in a single day. 

Method

Our study followed a self-experimental, mixed design in which three of us researchers acted as experimenters and participants. Each participant completed one of the three study conditions over two weeks. The intervention conditions were modelled on the study conducted by Lyubomirsky et al. (2004), with our primary modification being a condensed duration and an altered structure of the kindness acts.

Each of the three researchers were randomly selected into one of the following groups: the first condition involved performing one act of kindness each day for 14 consecutive days; the second condition required the participant to carry out all 14 acts of kindness over two days (e.g., seven acts each day, spaced one week apart); the third condition functioned as a control, with the participant continuing their routine without any instructed prosocial behaviour. All three participants completed the same three validated measures of SWB at four different time points: prior to the intervention (pre-week 1), after the first week (post-week 1), at the beginning of the second week (pre-week 2), and after the study (post-week 2). These measures were selected to provide a multi-dimensional view of subjective well-being, assessing emotional and cognitive components.

Positive and negative affect were measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), which includes 20 adjectives rated on a 5-point Likert scale according to how strongly they are felt "at this moment." Scores for the 10 positive and 10 negative items are summed separately, producing a possible range of 10–50 for each dimension. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) was used to measure cognitive evaluations of one's life. It consists of five statements rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), yielding a score between 5 and 35, with higher scores indicating greater life satisfaction. Subjective happiness was assessed using the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), which contains four items evaluated on a 7-point scale. One item is reverse scored before the mean of the four items is calculated, resulting in a total score ranging from 1 to 7, with higher values indicating greater happiness. 

Each participant completed the questionnaires individually and privately. Those in the intervention groups were encouraged to carry out their acts of kindness as naturally as possible, without documenting or reflecting formally on their experiences in order to minimise demand characteristics and preserve the intervention's ecological validity. All acts were self-initiated and consistent with the examples provided in previous research. For example, some of the acts of kindness performed in both experimental conditions included donating blood, baking a cake for someone, donating clothes to charity, volunteering as a park run marshall, hugging a stranger, leaving kind notes in public places, giving a lift home to a work colleague, and paying for a little kid’s Easter egg after seeing him cry when his mum kept saying no.

 Results 

Overall, the results revealed a promising improvement in SWB across both prosocial conditions, with some positive change also noted in the control condition. The two-day kindness condition consistently showed the most improvement across all three well-being measures, aligning with previous findings that condensed prosocial activity may generate a more substantial psychological impact (Lyubomirksy et al., 2004). This shows the potential of prosocial behaviour to enhance SWB significantly.

Regarding positive affect, the participant in the one-a-day kindness condition experienced a steady increase from a baseline score of 25 to 34 by the end of week two. The participant in the two-day condition demonstrated a sharper rise, from 26 to 36 by the end of week one, followed by a temporary drop to 12 before recovering to 32 by post-week two. The control condition also improved, with positive affect scores increasing from 25 to 33. This suggests that external factors, such as improved weather or personal life events, may have contributed to elevated mood during the intervention and increased the scores. While negative affect remained low across conditions, fluctuations were present nonetheless, highlighting the importance of individual and contextual factors in influencing well-being.

                   

                                                                    

Life satisfaction scores (SWLS) revealed a stronger contrast between conditions. The two-day kindness participant showed the most significant gain in SWLS scores, rising from 16 at baseline to 28 at post-week two. The control participant also improved notably, from 20 to 29, while the one-a-day participant experienced a slight decline, from 22 to 20. This suggests that although daily acts of kindness may improve emotional affect, their impact on cognitive life evaluation may take longer to see significant differences or require more reflective processing.

Subjective happiness (SH) scores followed a similar trend. The one-a-day participant’s score increased modestly from 5.0 to 5.5, while the two-day participant showed the most significant improvement from 4.75 to 6.5. Interestingly, the control participant’s happiness also rose substantially, from a low baseline of 3.0 to 5.75 by the end of the intervention period. These findings highlight the complexity of subjective well-being, as we can see improvements can occur through intentional behaviour or even through unmeasured life events or internal shifts.

Discussion 

This project set out to explore whether engaging in non-monetary prosocial behaviour over a short period of time could meaningfully improve SWB in young adults. Drawing on the experimental design of Lyubomirsky et al. (2004), we implemented two prosocial conditions, one involving 14 acts of kindness distributed daily across two weeks, and another condensing the same number of acts into just two specific days (once per week). A third condition served as the control, where no acts of kindness were performed. To evaluate changes in well-being, we used three validated measures: the PANAS to assess emotional affect (Watson et al., 1988), the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), and the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999).

Our findings were in line with what was predicted in Hypothesis 1, where participants in both prosocial conditions experienced improvements in overall SWB by the end of the two-week intervention. Positive affect scores increased, life satisfaction rose, and participants reported feeling generally happier. Although all three participants were young adults under the age of 25 and engaged in different kindness schedules, the emotional and cognitive gains were consistent with the existing body of literature, suggesting that helping others, whether briefly or consistently, yields tangible emotional benefits (Aknin et al., 2013; Layous et al., 2012). Interestingly, a slight advantage appeared for the one-day-per-week kindness condition, supporting hypothesis 2 and aligning with the Lyubomirsky et al. (2004) finding that grouping acts together may create a more noticeable and memorable psychological impact.

These results align with a growing body of evidence suggesting that acts of kindness improve well-being not just because of what is done, but because of how they fulfil certain human needs. Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) provides a useful lens for understanding this effect. According to the theory, behaviours that satisfy psychological needs such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness are more likely to enhance well-being. When individuals perform acts of kindness, they may feel more socially connected, more capable of making a difference, and more in control of their actions, all of which contribute to elevated happiness. The universality of this finding is particularly compelling: prosocial behaviour has been shown to benefit individuals across cultures, age groups, and income levels (Aknin et al., 2020), reinforcing its robustness as a pathway to improved mental health and greater life satisfaction. In the context of our study, these theoretical perspectives help explain why even a relatively short intervention period was sufficient to generate positive changes. Participants didn’t need to spend money, volunteer extensively, or engage in complex activities—simply performing intentional, thoughtful acts of kindness was enough to foster meaningful shifts in how they felt and evaluated their lives.

While the findings offer promising insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. The most significant is the extremely small sample size; just one participant per condition means the results are illustrative rather than conclusive. With such a limited number of data points, it is difficult to draw strong generalisations or run meaningful statistical analyses. Additionally, the study relied on self-report measures, which, while widely validated, are still vulnerable to subjective biases such as social desirability or mood fluctuations unrelated to the intervention. The short duration of the project (two weeks) may also have constrained the potential for long-term or sustained well-being changes to emerge. In contrast, many existing interventions, such as those discussed in Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) and Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006), spanned six weeks or more. A longer timeframe may allow for deeper internalization of the benefits of prosocial behaviour and offer a clearer understanding of whether those benefits plateau, persist, or fade over time (Lyubomirsky et al., 2011). It is also important to consider the broader context: this study took place during a time when students were likely under academic pressure and approaching a holiday break. Factors such as coursework deadlines, personal stress, or even the positive anticipation of Easter could have independently influenced participants' well-being scores. Because these external variables were not controlled for, they represent potential confounds that could have skewed the results.

To build on these initial insights, future research should aim for greater scale and rigour. Larger, randomised samples would allow researchers to draw firmer conclusions and examine whether the effects of prosocial behaviour vary by personality, socioeconomic status, or baseline SWB. Future studies might also benefit from incorporating qualitative methods, such as reflective journaling or post-intervention interviews, to better understand how participants experience and make meaning from their kind acts. This could shed light on whether it is the act itself, the intention behind it, or the response it receives that contributes most to well-being. It would also be valuable to test the effects of different types of prosocial behaviour, particularly comparing monetary and non-monetary acts, or visible versus anonymous gestures, to explore which are most impactful. Curry et al. (2018) highlighted that while acts of kindness generally enhance SWB, future research should investigate how different forms of kindness, such as those directed toward friends versus strangers, might vary in their emotional benefits. Furthermore, future interventions could manipulate the degree of personal connection involved in kindness, such as helping friends versus strangers, to assess whether social closeness moderates the emotional outcomes.

Overall, while this project was small in scale, it contributes meaningfully to the growing evidence base on kindness and SWB. It offers a simple but powerful takeaway: even short-term, intentional efforts to be kind, regardless of their format, have the potential to create real emotional benefits.

References

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. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031578

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Proulx, J., Lok, I., & Norton, M. I. (2020). Does spending money on others promote happiness?: A registered replication report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), e15–e26. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000191 

Binswanger, M. (2006b). Why does income growth fail to make us happier? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.040

Brickman, P. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. Adaptation level theory, 287-301.

Chen, Y. (2024). Prosocial Behavior and Well-Being: An Empirical review of the role of Basic Psychological Need satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 158(5), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2024.2307377 

Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014411319119

Gregori, F., López‐Pérez, B., Manfredi, L., Eisenberg, N., Lundie, D., Lee, S., Gerbino, M., Pastorelli, C., & Zuffianò, A. (2024). The relations among prosocial behavior, hedonic, and eudaimonic well‐being in everyday life. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12937 

Hill, G., & Howell, R. T. (2014). Moderators and mediators of pro-social spending and well-being: The influence of values and psychological need satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.013

Jebb, A. T., Tay, L., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0277-0 

Jiang, D., Hosking, D., Burns, R., & Anstey, K. J. (2018). Volunteering benefits life satisfaction over 4 years: The moderating role of social network size. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12217

Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107

Kim, J., & Morgül, K. (2017). Long-term consequences of youth volunteering: Voluntary versus involuntary service. Social Science Research, 67, 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.05.002 

Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PLOS ONE, 7(12), e51380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051380

Lindqvist, E., Östling, R., & Cesarini, D. (2020). Long-Run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-Being. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(6), 2703–2726. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa006

Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022575

Lyubomirsky, S., Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). [Pursuing sustained happiness through random acts of kindness and counting one's blessings: Tests of two six-week interventions]. Unpublished raw data. 

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Prosocial behavior increases well-being and vitality even without contact with the beneficiary: Causal and behavioral evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 40(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9552-z

Miles, A., Andiappan, M., Upenieks, L., & Orfanidis, C. (2022). Using prosocial behavior to safeguard mental health and foster emotional well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A registered report of a randomized trial. PLoS ONE, 17(7), e0272152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272152 

Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2013). Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is there any evidence of satiation? American Economic Review, 103(3), 598–604. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.598  

Stuart, J., Kamerade, D., Connolly, S., Ellis Paine, A., Nichols, G., & Grotz, J. (2020). The impacts of volunteering on the subjective wellbeing of volunteers: A rapid evidence assessment. What Works Wellbeing. 

Titova, L., & Sheldon, K. M. (2021). Happiness comes from trying to make others feel good, rather than oneself. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1897867 

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Yang, J. (2020). Formal Volunteering Buffers the Negative Impact of Unemployment among Older Workers: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 63(3), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2020.1744057