Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact (SPII)

1. Abstract

The Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact (SPII) scale is a psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s subjective evaluation of the meaningful, beneficial difference their personal actions have exerted on another person’s welfare, emotional state, or practical circumstances. Conceptualized and validated by Sara Hanson and Hong Yuan (2018), the scale was originally formulated to evaluate interpersonal psychological empowerment within social consumption environments, specifically investigating how mechanisms such as peer-to-peer social coupon sharing stimulate feelings of social efficacy and altruistic agency. Drawing robust theoretical foundations from the prosocial impact literature (e.g., Adam Grant’s work on perceived prosocial impact) and employee psychological empowerment paradigms (e.g., Gretchen Spreitzer’s foundational dimensions of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact), the SPII adapts these organizational concepts into interpersonal, dyadic, and consumer-to-consumer contexts.

Structurally, the instrument operates as a unidimensional measurement model comprising six self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Across multiple experimental and field trials conducted by Hanson and Yuan, the scale has exhibited exemplary psychometric properties, consistently demonstrating high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically exceeding .90, composite reliability values surpassing .92, and Average Variance Extracted exceeding .65). Confirmatory factor analyses confirm a clean single-factor structure with robust fit indices, high standardized factor loadings (.75 to .93), and robust discriminant validity against related constructs such as generalized self-efficacy, warm glow, transactional satisfaction, and basic social utility. The SPII provides organizational scholars, social psychologists, behavioral economists, and marketing researchers with a rigorous, parsimonious metric for capturing the psychological rewards realized when individuals perceive themselves as benevolent change agents within their personal networks.

2. Keywords

Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact, prosocial impact, interpersonal empowerment, psychological empowerment, social coupons, altruistic utility, perceived social impact, psychometrics, scale validation, prosocial behavior, helper’s high, social exchange theory

3. Authors

The Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact (SPII) scale was authored by Sara Hanson and Hong Yuan.

• Sara Hanson, Ph.D.: Associate Professor of Marketing at the Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, United States. Dr. Hanson’s research centers on consumer behavior, prosocial decision-making, word-of-mouth communications, digital interactions, and the social dynamics that govern customer empowerment.
• Hong Yuan, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing and Dean’s Excellence Research Fellow at the Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States. Dr. Yuan’s empirical research investigates pricing strategies, consumer financial decision-making, promotional framing, and interpersonal consumer behavior.

The instrument was initially detailed and published in the peer-reviewed empirical paper: “Friends with benefits: Social coupons as a strategy to enhance customers’ social empowerment”, published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2018), Volume 46, Issue 4, pages 768–787.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact (SPII) scale is to quantify an individual’s conscious perception that their voluntary behaviors have enhanced the well-being, financial posture, subjective utility, or experiential satisfaction of specific other people. While existing psychometric tools historically assessed prosocial tendencies as generalized trait altruism (e.g., the Self-Report Altruism scale) or evaluated feelings of impact strictly within formal employment structures (e.g., Grant’s perceived prosocial impact scale or Spreitzer’s psychological empowerment scale), empirical researchers lacked a dedicated, psychometrically robust tool capable of capturing transactional and interpersonal micro-interventions occurring in daily social and consumer life.

Hanson and Yuan (2018) recognized this critical theoretical gap in consumer psychology and micro-sociology. In commercial environments, firms increasingly delegate promotional and marketing power directly to end-users via “social coupons,” referral rewards, and reciprocal discount structures. Rather than viewing these programs through an exclusively economic or transaction-cost lens, Hanson and Yuan posited that sharing such privileges activates deep-seated psychological mechanisms of interpersonal empowerment. To evaluate whether individuals experienced psychological enrichment from these actions, researchers required a metric that isolates the subjective realization: “My targeted action produced tangible, positive outcomes for someone I care about or interact with.”

Beyond consumer research, the SPII serves vital functions across several allied disciplines:

• Social and Personality Psychology: The scale illuminates the affective and cognitive architectures underpinning the “helper’s high” and warm-glow altruism. It allows scholars to differentiate between the purely self-referential positive affect generated by doing good and the specific cognitive appraisal that an actual positive difference was made in another’s life.
• Organizational Behavior and Leadership: While initially calibrated in consumer settings, the SPII provides human resources and management scholars with a modular, highly adaptable instrument to evaluate peer-to-peer support, formal mentorship interventions, onboarding peer-buddy systems, and informal cross-functional assistance programs.
• Digital Platforms and Social Media Analytics: In digital environments characterized by sharing, crowdfunding, peer support communities, and mutual aid networks, the scale operationalizes how platform mechanics reinforce digital citizenship through perceived interpersonal effectiveness.
• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: Therapeutic interventions aimed at mitigating depression, chronic loneliness, or severe anomie frequently employ behavioral activation strategies centered on community engagement. The SPII can be applied as a diagnostic and evaluative tool to monitor whether therapeutic volunteerism or interpersonal connection tasks effectively instill a sense of relational agency and personal social worth within the client.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact resides at the intersection of perceived prosocial impact, relational agency, and interpersonal psychological empowerment. Psychologically, human beings possess a fundamental drive not merely to belong, but to perceive themselves as competent, valuable contributors to the lives of conspecifics. When an actor initiates a prosocial behavior—such as providing information, sharing financial or material resources, offering emotional consolation, or transferring a tangible benefit—the cognitive processing that follows involves an appraisal of behavioral efficacy.

This appraisal can be broken down into three interdependent psychological constituents, which jointly constitute the core construct measured by the SPII:

1. Awareness of Benefit Delivery

At the most fundamental cognitive level, the construct requires the actor to perceive that a concrete, non-trivial benefit has been successfully transferred to or unlocked for the recipient. If an individual sends a referral code or delivers advice that is ignored, discarded, or deemed worthless, this dimension remains dormant. The SPII measures the conviction that the delivered resource holds genuine utility, value, or relief for the other person.

2. Attribution of Positive Causality

Crucially, the construct does not measure general optimism regarding another person’s good fortune; rather, it measures agentic causality. The actor explicitly attributes the improvement in the recipient’s well-being to their own volitional act. Drawing from attribution theory, the individual constructs an internal attribution: “Their improved condition is a direct consequence of my intervention.” This attributional loop is vital for cultivating self-efficacy and mitigating feelings of powerlessness in social contexts.

3. Relational Meaning and Emotional Validation

Finally, the construct captures the subjective significance and emotional resonance of the outcome. The actor feels that the intervention mattered on a human level. It transcends mechanical utility by generating feelings of interpersonal closeness, social affirmation, and mutual benefit. The actor experiences their social existence as meaningful because it has tangibly enriched the experiential reality of another person.

Importantly, the SPII is distinct from generalized self-esteem or broad self-efficacy. Whereas generalized self-efficacy (e.g., as measured by Chen, Gully, and Eden) evaluates an omnibus belief in one’s capacity to overcome general challenges across diverse scenarios, the SPII isolates localized, dyadic, and prosocial efficacy. Similarly, it differs from empathy or empathic concern; empathy represents an emotional and cognitive capacity to share and understand another’s affective state, whereas SPII represents an evaluative judgment regarding the success and consequence of one’s own corrective or enhancing behavior directed toward that state.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact is anchored in three interconnected theoretical traditions within psychological and organizational science: Prosocial Impact Theory, Psychological Empowerment Theory, and Self-Determination Theory.

Prosocial Impact Theory

The foremost intellectual lineage of the SPII stems from Adam Grant’s (2007, 2008) formulation of relational job design and prosocial impact. Grant postulated that motivation, performance, and psychological flourishing are significantly enhanced when individuals are given structural opportunities to see and understand the positive impact of their actions on other human beings. In Grant’s framework, “perceived prosocial impact” serves as a critical psychological mediator linking behavioral effort to emotional exhaustion buffers, intrinsic motivation, and task persistence. Hanson and Yuan (2018) extended Grant’s framework beyond the boundaries of formal workplace structures into spontaneous, informal, and consumer-mediated interpersonal relations. They posited that everyday actions—such as conferring an exclusive benefit or sharing valuable consumption opportunities—activate precisely the same prosocial feedback loop, transforming an ordinary interpersonal exchange into a vehicle for psychological flourishing.

Psychological Empowerment Theory

The second foundational pillar is rooted in the cognitive models of psychological empowerment articulated by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and later operationalized by Gretchen Spreitzer (1995). In Spreitzer’s seminal four-dimension model, psychological empowerment comprises:

1. Meaning: The alignment between an individual’s personal values and their role requirements.
2. Competence: Personal self-efficacy regarding the ability to perform activities successfully.
3. Self-Determination: A sense of autonomy and personal choice in initiating and regulating actions.
4. Impact: The degree to which an individual perceives that their behaviors produce a significant difference in organizational, systemic, or interpersonal outcomes.

Hanson and Yuan explicitly isolated the “impact” dimension of empowerment and transplanted it into interpersonal social networks. In doing so, they demonstrated that empowerment is not exclusively vertical (e.g., an employer empowering an employee, or a state empowering a citizen), but can be horizontal and relational. When individuals possess the tools to enrich the lives of their peers, they experience what Hanson and Yuan termed “social empowerment,” driven heavily by this sense of interpersonal impact.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

The SPII also aligns seamlessly with the basic psychological needs framework within Self-Determination Theory formulated by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (2000). SDT asserts that human well-being requires the ongoing satisfaction of three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact represents a cognitive sweet spot where all three needs converge:

• Competence is validated because the actor successfully navigated an interpersonal act that yielded measurable, beneficial results.
• Autonomy is reinforced when the prosocial action is freely chosen and internally motivated rather than coerced.
• Relatedness is deepened because providing meaningful benefits to another human strengthens dyadic bonds, fosters social reciprocity, and validates one’s position within a collaborative social matrix.

7. Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact scale has been rigorously established across multiple empirical studies, encompassing laboratory experiments, online panels (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific), and field surveys involving consumer coupon sharing, social promotions, and interpersonal favor exchange.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially confirmed by Hanson and Yuan (2018) via comprehensive Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The six items loaded cleanly onto a single underlying latent construct. All standardized item loadings exceeded the recommended threshold of .70 (with observed loadings spanning .75 to .93), demonstrating that the items represent potent reflections of the latent variable. The average variance extracted (AVE) consistently surpassed .65, satisfying the classical criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) that latent constructs should explain more than 50% of the variance in their constituent indicators.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by assessing the SPII’s associations with theoretical correlates measuring prosocial orientation, affect, and subjective value:

• Warm Glow: The SPII demonstrated strong, positive, statistically significant correlations with measures of emotional warm glow (typically r = .55 to .68, p < .001), consistent with Andreoni’s (1990) economic theory of impure altruism.
• Perceived Helpfulness: Moderate-to-high positive correlations were observed with perceived helpfulness of the action (r > .60, p < .001).
• Relational Closeness: Scores on the SPII correlated positively with post-sharing perceived relational closeness (Aron, Aron, & Smollan’s Inclusion of Other in the Self scale), indicating that experiencing positive interpersonal impact reinforces dyadic connection.

Discriminant Validity

To establish that the SPII does not merely replicate existing psychometric inventories, Hanson and Yuan conducted rigorous discriminant validity testing using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-construct correlations:

• The square root of the AVE for the SPII (regularly exceeding .80) was substantially greater than its bivariate correlation with any adjacent construct, including generalized positive affect, transactional economic savings, generalized self-esteem, and brand attitude.
• Furthermore, testing confirmed discriminant validity against generalized self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001). While generalized self-efficacy reflects broad operational competence across ambiguous environments, the SPII uniquely captured the outward, social beneficiary-oriented consequences of specific actions.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The predictive validity of the SPII is exceptionally robust. Within structural equation models and mediation analyses, the SPII successfully mediated the relationship between social sharing mechanisms and subsequent pro-brand behaviors, including:

• Repeat purchase intentions and persistent platform loyalty.
• Willingness to engage in future voluntary word-of-mouth (WOM) advocacy.
• Elevated feelings of customer-brand identification and relational commitment.

Critically, experimental manipulations that constrained or neutralized the perceived benefit received by the partner (e.g., informing the sender that the coupon code was unusable or provided negligible value) caused immediate, statistically significant drops in SPII scores, validating the scale’s acute sensitivity to genuine social efficacy.

8. Reliability

The Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact scale demonstrates exceptional reliability across diverse empirical sampling frames, cultural sub-samples, and study contexts.

Internal Consistency

Across the experimental studies reported in Hanson and Yuan’s (2018) seminal research program, the scale’s internal consistency coefficients consistently exceeded accepted standards for psychological assessment:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): The scale consistently registers Cronbach’s alpha values between .91 and .95 across independent samples. In Study 1 of Hanson and Yuan (2018), the alpha was reported at .93; subsequent studies replicating the measurement structure produced alphas of .92, .94, and .91, indicating minimal measurement error and high item covariance.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling revealed composite reliability values ranging from .92 to .96, well above Bagozzi and Yi’s recommended cutoff of .70.
• McDonald’s Omega (ω): When evaluated using contemporary psychometric software that relaxes the assumption of tau-equivalence, McDonald’s hierarchical and total omega coefficients similarly exceed .92, verifying that the single common factor accounts for almost the entirety of the variance across items.

Item-Total Correlations and Stability

Corrected item-total correlations across all six items consistently exceed .68, with the majority falling between .74 and .86. Deletion of any individual item results in no improvement in the overall Cronbach’s alpha, demonstrating that every item contributes substantially to the underlying construct without introducing psychometric bloat or redundancies.

While the SPII is primarily administered as a state-based evaluative measure following specific interpersonal interactions, longitudinal and test-retest assessments over short intervals (e.g., two-week delays in stable interpersonal dyads) have demonstrated substantial temporal stability (test-retest correlation coefficients r > .78), establishing that the instrument captures coherent cognitive assessments rather than transient, erratic mood fluctuations.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the SPII has been thoroughly scrutinized using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial instrument development, EFA using Maximum Likelihood extraction and Principal Axis Factoring with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations was conducted on initial item pools. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy consistently exceeded .90 (typically .92 to .94), categorizing the data matrix as “marvelous” for factor analytic procedures according to Kaiser’s criteria. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant across all iterations (χ² values yielded p < .0001), confirming substantial inter-item correlation.

Factor retention criteria—including Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule and Cattell’s scree plot analysis—unambiguously supported a unidimensional structure. The primary factor routinely accounted for 68% to 76% of the total variance, with the second factor exhibiting an eigenvalue well below 0.60, confirming the absence of secondary dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent validation studies subjected the six-item measurement model to CFA utilizing maximum likelihood estimation. Standard structural equation modeling goodness-of-fit benchmarks (Hu & Bentler, 1999) were applied, yielding outstanding fit indices:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Ratios ranged between 1.25 and 2.40, falling well below the conventional conservative cutoff of 3.0.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values regularly fell between .97 and .99 (minimum threshold ≥ .95).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Coefficients ranged from .96 to .99 (minimum threshold ≥ .95).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Point estimates consistently registered between .035 and .058, with the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval remaining below .08.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values were consistently beneath .030, well below the acceptable ceiling of .08.

Standardized factor loadings (λ) for the six items across multiple empirical tests are summarized below:

Note: *** indicates p < .001. Factor loadings represent standardized ranges observed across validation studies.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The SPII is an efficient, easily administered self-report rating scale. Its structural and administrative specifications include:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or computerized/online survey administration (compatible with Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey, RedCap, Google Forms).
• Number of Items: 6 items.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Target Population: Adult populations (aged 18 and older) engaging in social, consumer, community, or interpersonal sharing behaviors. Adaptable for adolescent cohorts with minor phrasing adjustments.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Scoring Protocol: All six items are keyed in a positive direction; there are no reverse-coded items. The overall score is calculated either as an arithmetic mean across the 6 items (yielding a continuous composite score from 1.00 to 7.00) or as a summed total score (ranging from 6 to 42). Higher numerical values indicate a heightened subjective sense of positive interpersonal impact.
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Low SPII (Mean < 3.5; Sum < 21): Indicates that the individual feels their action produced negligible, unnoticed, or ineffective outcomes for the other party.
  • Moderate SPII (Mean 3.5 to 5.0; Sum 21 to 30): Reflects mild or ambiguous interpersonal efficacy; the actor recognizes minor assistance but lacks a deep conviction of meaningful enhancement.
  • High SPII (Mean > 5.0; Sum > 30): Demonstrates acute interpersonal empowerment; the actor feels unequivocally that their agency directly fostered significant positive utility and well-being for the recipient.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sense of Positive Interpersonal Impact scale was introduced to the academic community in 2018 through the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS). The intellectual copyright of the original publication belongs to the Academy of Marketing Science and Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Under customary academic fair use principles, the scale may be utilized without financial charge by non-commercial researchers, university faculty, doctoral students, and clinical practitioners for scientific, educational, and empirical investigation, provided that proper scholarly attribution is formally accorded to Hanson and Yuan (2018). Commercial entities, market research agencies, or consulting organizations intending to integrate the scale into proprietary commercial diagnostic batteries or monetization-oriented consumer analytics should consult the original authors or request permissions through Springer’s RightsLink / Copyright Clearance Center portal.

12. References

• Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001
• Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
• 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
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
• Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
• Hanson, S., & Yuan, H. (2018). Friends with benefits: Social coupons as a strategy to enhance customers’ social empowerment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 768–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0579-6
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
• Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926

13. Items of the Scale