Bretbel-Haurwitz,Marsb for these variables did not eliminate the well-being/ of geographic variation in well-being and altruistic dona altruism relationship supports the direct relationship tion in the United States from year to year,as demon donation and by the similar relationships found betweer cial behavion the finding tha Dunn,Norton,2011:Dunn,Aknin,Norton,2008 changes in median income from 1999 to 2010 predicted Lyubomirsky,Sheldon,Schkade,2005)and that well- altruistic kidney donation,and that this effect was medi Hewitt.2001).However.these findings ated by well-b Thoits ing supports subective wellbeing as an edenta truist bet which represents a subset of prosocial acts that are aimed features of the well-being/altruism relationship using at assisting a needy,vulnerable other at a cost to the self present-day well-being statistics and regional variation in (Preston,2013). the of later altruistic kidney donations (Bednall Bove.2011:Bekkers Wiepking.2011).But period of the measure used here (9196)may some these mechanisms do not provide an adequate explana- what limit conclusions that can be drawn about the role unrecipr naccumulatic ing literature on the link between well-being and proso- ciality by suggesting that improved well-being may in differ from nondonors in their general altruistic motiva genuine aruism.Conversely.the ne a10 n be of thi 110/ con equential behavior and other related acts polled rep edthat the would consider altruistic dona Additionally.because our results were derived using a tion (Henderson et al.,2003),but the prevalence of actual nationally representative sample,we avoided perennial donations remains much lower.This difference suggests out un pref un be ence of at n students or online participar st that wvell-he may he one such vari That community-level wealth positively predicts altru- able.This observation is consistent with the conceptual ism is of particular inte ization of well-being as an engine, whereby positive ely rel changes in bjective well-being cont oute to of social class and wealth n sity in economic games and beliefs about donating to charity et al 2012)although we note as a caveat that the cor (Piff,Kraus,Cote, Cheng,Keltner,2010).Thus,ou relational data reported here cannot directly support finding paradox tha munity-l causal relationship This eve well-he impevel is in of actively the fact that wealth at the individual level affects proso- Seligman,2004).British Prime Minister David Cameror ciality in part via social comparsons.Thus,within a com- recently proclaimed the improvement of societal well r individuals may be less prosoctal eing to political cha ge of our times fit that it suggests that increases in community-level obiective mote well-being:an increase in lifesaving acts of extraor well-being may result in overall positive,rather than neg- dinary altruism Given that altruism itself promotes ative,downstrear effects on pros wel-being C snin,Dunn,Norton,2011),policies tha Galbp-Health eings is tha at the recency of the cle where ng may tive analyses of altruistic kidney donation during the past that,in tum,increases well-being.Such a cycle holds the decade.This issue is mitigated.however.by the stability promise of creating a "sustainable happiness"(Aknin. 208 Brethel-Haurwitz, Marsh for these variables did not eliminate the well-being/ altruism relationship supports the direct relationship between altruistic donation and subjective well-being. A substantial literature has confirmed both that proso￾cial behaviors increase well-being (Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn, & Norton, 2011; Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005) and that well￾being increases prosociality (Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2011; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). However, these findings have not demonstrated that well-being increases altruism, which represents a subset of prosocial acts that are aimed at assisting a needy, vulnerable other at a cost to the self (Preston, 2013). Common prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering, result from a variety of processes, including adherence to social norms or anticipated reciprocity (Bednall & Bove, 2011; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). But these mechanisms do not provide an adequate explana￾tion for altruistic kidney donation, which is a high-cost, nonnormative, unreciprocated altruistic behavior. The present findings therefore expand the scope of the exist￾ing literature on the link between well-being and proso￾ciality by suggesting that improved well-being may in some cases increase genuine altruism. Conversely, the finding that altruistic kidney donation can be understood within this framework may illuminate the origins of this consequential behavior and other related acts of altruism. Additionally, because our results were derived using a nationally representative sample, we avoided perennial concerns about unusual features of prosocial behavior that may be observed only in samples of undergraduate students or online participants. That community-level wealth positively predicts altru￾ism is of particular interest, given previous findings that some forms of prosocial behavior are inversely related to wealth. For example, subjective and objective estimates of social class and wealth negatively predict generosity in economic games and beliefs about donating to charity (Piff, Kraus, Cote, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010). Thus, our finding paradoxically indicates that community-level income may positively predict prosociality even while individual-level wealth does not. This result may relate to the fact that wealth at the individual level affects proso￾ciality in part via social comparisons. Thus, within a com￾munity, wealthier individuals may be less prosocial even as the community as a whole becomes more prosocial as wealth increases. This is an important distinction because it suggests that increases in community-level objective well-being may result in overall positive, rather than neg￾ative, downstream effects on prosociality. A limitation of these findings is that the recency of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index prevents prospec￾tive analyses of altruistic kidney donation during the past decade. This issue is mitigated, however, by the stability of geographic variation in well-being and altruistic dona￾tion in the United States from year to year, as demon￾strated by the similar relationships found between well-being and altruism in assessed donations in 2010 and from 1999 to 2010. In addition, the finding that changes in median income from 1999 to 2010 predicted altruistic kidney donation, and that this effect was medi￾ated by well-being, supports subjective well-being as an antecedent of altruistic kidney donation. Researchers in future studies may be better able to capture longitudinal features of the well-being/altruism relationship using present-day well-being statistics and regional variation in the prevalence of later altruistic kidney donations. If available, updated measures of collectivism across states would also be important to consider, given that the time period of the measure used here (1993–1996) may some￾what limit conclusions that can be drawn about the role of collectivism. Obviously, an accumulation of factors must contribute to the decision to donate a kidney altruistically. Previous studies have suggested that altruistic kidney donors may differ from nondonors in their general altruistic motiva￾tion, empathy, or relevant life experiences (Henderson et al., 2003; Massey et al., 2010). But other variables must also be at play. Between 11% and 54% of individuals polled reported that they would consider altruistic dona￾tion (Henderson et al., 2003), but the prevalence of actual donations remains much lower. This difference suggests the existence of additional variables that “nudge” poten￾tially receptive individuals into actually donating. Our findings suggest that well-being may be one such vari￾able. This observation is consistent with the conceptual￾ization of well-being as an engine, whereby positive changes in objective well-being contribute to subjective processes that promote engagement in meaningful and autonomous behaviors, such as altruism (Jayawickreme et al., 2012), although we note as a caveat that the cor￾relational data reported here cannot directly support causal relationships. Recognition of the importance of actively promoting well-being on a national level is increasing (Diener & Seligman, 2004). British Prime Minister David Cameron recently proclaimed the improvement of societal well￾being to be “the central political challenge of our times” (Stratton, 2010). The findings reported here point to a concrete benefit that may derive from policies that pro￾mote well-being: an increase in lifesaving acts of extraor￾dinary altruism. Given that altruism itself promotes well-being (Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2011), policies that promote well-being may help to generate a virtuous cir￾cle whereby increases in well-being promote altruism that, in turn, increases well-being. Such a cycle holds the promise of creating a “sustainable happiness” (Aknin, Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 11, 2014