Happiness, Well-being and Goodlife
Happiness
“Happiness is the meaning of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” – Aristotle.
“Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.” – Ernest Hemingway.
“Folks are usually about as happy as they make their minds up to be.” – Abraham Lincoln.
“For every minute you are angry, you lose sixty seconds of happiness.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Happiness, the main topic of positive psychology, is a subjective experience (one's feeling) of a complex set of positive emotions (from contentment to intense joy) that affects our thoughts, moods, attitudes, performances and relationships with others.
One of the pioneers of positive psychology, Sonja Lyubomirsky, has described happiness as “the experience of joy, contentment or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful and worthwhile.”
Happiness is defined differently by different people and is used in the contexts of hedonic pleasures, eudemonic living (living a life of virtue), life satisfaction, subjective well-being and flourishing.
Hedonic and Eudemonic Happiness
Hedonistic (hedonic) is derived from the Greek word “hedone”, meaning pleasure, delight and enjoyment. Hedonism regards pleasure or enjoyment as a chief goal in life. Many of us have embraced the pursuit of pleasure (happiness) as a guiding motto of our lives and behaviours. George Carlin (American stand-up comedian, social critic and philosopher 1937-2008) described it as “the delusion of the American Dream”. He criticised the pursuit of happiness: “It's a focus on feeling good, seeking out experiences that provide us with positive sensations like pleasure, enjoyment and gratification through our physical senses and psychological state. It's the purpose and meaning of life based on activities that produce those states, such as focusing on being entertained, having a good time, chasing adrenaline highs and constant adventures to provide personally pleasing experiences on the mild side, with partying, alcohol, drugs, sex, gluttony, etc. as an extreme.”
Eudaimonic (or eudaemonic) is derived from the Greek words eu and daimon meaning good, well or right, plus guardian or the guiding spirit. It suggests activities or experiences that produce happiness or are conducive to happiness. That's much different from pursuing hedonic happiness, happiness as a goal or the focus of life. Many things in life create happiness or pleasure, but they don't need to be our aim where we remain attached to them just because we derive pleasure from them. The eudaimonic type of happiness is more fulfilling in the long term. We pursue things of meaning and value in our lives that produce happiness as a by-product instead of happiness and pleasure as the primary focus. Sometimes we experience unpleasant incidents and consequently feel devastated. Learning to bear with them temporarily and overcome our hardship can also lead to deeper positive emotional states of contentment or joy. We can learn and grow from the unpleasant aspects of our lives and gain great insight and value from them. A happy life is not about avoiding hard times, unpleasant feelings or challenges of life; it’s about learning to deal with them and experiencing the happiness of facing them head-on.
Pleasant Life, Engaged Life and Meaningful Life
The proposed conceptual framework of positive psychology (Seligman, Authentic Happiness, 2002) divided happiness into three domains or three types of life: pleasant life (pleasure and gratification), engaged life (active and connected) and meaningful life (meaning and purpose).
A pleasant life is one in which we frequently engage in activities that give us pleasure, such as eating our favourite food, watching a movie or going for a walk at the seaside (hedonic pleasures). These activities all produce pleasure (endorphins) and offer us happy moments that can be the highlights of our day. They are indeed important; however, they are fleeting and may not give us deep satisfaction.
An engaged life is a step deeper and involves activities that help us cultivate virtues and strengths and use them to pursue a meaningful purpose. This type of life is more likely to bring a state of “flow”, which is crucial in fully absorbing what we do. Being passionately involved in something significant (hobby, scientific curiosity or social activity) can be a great source of happiness and satisfaction. They deliver contentment and provide a sense of belonging (identity) and achievement in life. Generally, an engaged life is much better than an empty life dominated by lots of idle time. Of course, the more meaningful, cherished, and pleasant the activities of our lives are, the happier and the more contented we’ll be.
Meaningful life is marked by purpose and meaning. If you can think of a cause more significant than or more important than yourself that is truly worth fighting for (family, friends, freedom, social justice or environment), you’ve found your purpose in life. You put this cause at the top of your priority list, even above your happiness. Spending your life to achieve that aim is the most profound and enduring satisfaction. The happiness gained from being part of something bigger than ourselves and feeling that our actions matter can lead to a deep sense of fulfilment and happiness. We all like to think that our lives have significant meaning, and if we can find our “calling” or be part of a great team or organisation trying to make the world a better place, we’ll achieve ultimate satisfaction.
Subjective Well-Being
Scientists who work on positive psychology often use happiness as a synonym for subjective well-being (SWB), which they measure by asking people to report how satisfied they are with their lives and how many positive or negative emotions they experience. SWB tends to be stable over time and is strongly related to personality traits. There is evidence that health and SWB mutually influence each other, as good health tends to be associated with greater happiness.
SWB focus on how people subjectively evaluate their lives (life satisfaction), including their positive and negative emotions. Ed Diener (American psychologist, 1946) developed a three-way model of subjective well-being (1984), describing how people experience their quality of life. It includes emotional and cognitive appraisals and involves three distinct but often related components of well-being: frequent positive affects (emotions), infrequent negative affects, and cognitive evaluations (life satisfaction). Diener argued that the components of SWB represent distinct concepts that need to be considered separately, even though they are closely related.
There are two facets to SWB, “Affective Balance” and “Life Satisfaction”. An individual's scores on these two aspects are added to produce an overall SWB score. In some cases, these scores are kept separate. Affective balance refers to the emotions, moods and feelings of the individual. These can be positive, negative or a combination of both. The overall equilibrium between positive and negative components of SWB (pleasant and unpleasant moods and emotions) is usually measured as the difference between the two.
SWB is a self-reported measure of well-being (typically obtained by questionnaire). As it is a subjective assessment of well-being, it does not include objective elements such as health and wealth, although these can influence its evaluation. People’s levels of subjective well-being are influenced by internal factors such as attitude, personality (inborn temperament), and points of view and external factors such as their relationships, the societies they live in and their ability to meet their basic needs.
Research has shown that people who express higher subjective well-being (overall happiness and life satisfaction) are more likely to be healthier and live longer. They also have better social relationships and are more productive at work. In other words, happy people seem to be healthier, live longer and function more effectively than people who are constantly miserable, depressed or angry. Therefore, happiness does not just feel good; it creates a better life for the person and those around them.
Life Satisfaction
Life satisfaction is how people feel about their lives and their prospects. It measures (subjective) well-being in terms of people’s emotional and cognitive assessment of their relationships, achievements and perceived ability to cope with life challenges. It’s about their attitude towards life in general rather than assessing current feelings. Moreover, it often reflects the positive emotions they have recently experienced.
Life satisfaction is an overall assessment of one’s life at a particular time (often measured on a scale from 0 to 10). In other words, it is the degree to which people positively evaluate the overall quality of their lives when they compare their aspirations and expectations to their actual achievements.
One perspective sees life satisfaction as a reflection of the extent to which basic needs are met and how various other goals are viewed as attainable. From this standpoint, it would be reasonable to assume that life satisfaction should increase when more aspirations are realised. Life satisfaction is a crucial part of subjective well-being. It has been measured concerning the attitudes and feelings of people about their lives, including economic standing, education, residence, and life experiences.
Well-Being
Carol Ryff (USA, University of Wisconsin-Madison) pioneered the Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being. This model states six contributing factors to people's psychological well-being: self-acceptance, positive relationships, environmental mastery, autonomy, meaning in life and personal growth. It is not based on just feeling happy but is grounded in Aristotle's Ethics (Eudemian Ethics), where “the goal of life isn't feeling good, but about living virtuously."
Ryff’s model was based on the Ideal Mental Health theory suggested by Marie Jahoda (Austrian-British social psychologist, 1907-2001) in 1958. In this theory, Jahoda identified five categories deemed vital to well-being. At the time, she criticised the exaggerated attention psychologists paid to psychopathological states (the study of abnormal mental experiences). She suggested that mental health and well-being deserved greater consideration (thirty years before Seligman).
Ryff’s Scale for measuring well-being is a psychometric inventory, where the respondents rate statements on a scale of 1 to 6, where a higher score indicates greater psychological well-being. It’s a theoretically grounded instrument that measures multiple facets of psychological well-being. These facets include the following:
Autonomy: People who feel autonomous (having control) are self-determined (self-reliant), can resist social pressures to think and act in specific ways, regulate their behaviours from within and evaluate themselves by their principles and values. In short, having autonomy is about being independent (of social and external pressures) and being able to regulate one’s behaviour. For example, "I have confidence in my opinions, even if they contradict what others think".
Environmental Mastery: This indicates that the individual effectively uses available opportunities and has a sense of mastery in managing ecological factors and activities, including managing everyday affairs and creating situations that benefit their personal needs. For example, "In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live". The individual with environmental mastery has a sense of control and competence in managing various situations, can do a complex array of external activities, make effective use of available opportunities and choose or create contexts suitable to their personal needs and values.
Personal Growth: This idea represents individuals’ continuous development, how they welcome new experiences, and how they recognise self-improvement over time. For example, "I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how I think about myself and the world." Individuals who experience this feeling of continued growth see themselves as growing and expanding, are open to new experiences, feel a sense of achievement about their potential, see improvement in themselves and their behaviours, and change in ways that reflect more self-knowledge and effectiveness.
Positive Relationships: This indicates the individual's engagement in meaningful relationships, including reciprocal responsiveness, understanding and closeness. For example, "People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others." The individual has warm, satisfying and trusting relationships with others, is concerned about the welfare of others, is capable of strong empathy, affection, and intimacy, and understands the give-and-take of human relationships.
Purpose in Life: This shows that the individual has a robust goal-oriented attitude and a conviction that life holds meaning. For example, "Some people wander through life, but I am not one of them". The person has goals and a sense of direction, feels there is meaning to their lives, holds beliefs that give their lives purpose and has aims and objectives for living.
Self-Acceptance: This represents the individual’s positive attitude. For example, "I like most aspects of my personality." The individual acknowledges and accepts multiple aspects of self, including good and bad qualities and feels positive about their past life.
Some argue that a single questionnaire can measure six different criteria. Nonetheless, Jahoda-Ryff’s model has proved relatively robust, and researchers working across diverse population samples found that the data supports it. Moreover, Fava and his colleagues developed a well-being therapy based on Jahoda-Ryff's six elements.
Life Satisfaction Versus Subjective Well-being (SWB)
SWB has two main components: the emotional or affective component and the judgmental or cognitive component. Life satisfaction is considered the judgmental component of SWB. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) measures life satisfaction. It measures how people view themselves, their well-being and overall happiness. Research has shown that people’s perception of their experiences in life (life satisfaction) also relates to self-esteem. In short, people with high self-esteem often think more positively about their lives (and vice versa). SWLS was developed to assess satisfaction with life. The scale does not assess satisfaction with life in domains of health or finances. Typical ideas may include:
In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.
The conditions of my life are excellent.
I am satisfied with my life.
So far, I have achieved the critical things I want in life.
If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
Hope and optimism are linked to higher life satisfaction and influence how people perceive their lives. According to Seligman, hope and optimism correlate with higher satisfaction with life. The more hopeful people are, the less they focus on the negative aspects of their lives and the more they tend to enjoy the company of others, promoting a more productive environment. There are two main types of theories about life satisfaction:
Bottom-up theories or approaches suggest that people experience satisfaction in many domains of life, such as work, relationships, family, friends and health. Their satisfaction in all these areas combines to create their overall happiness or fulfilment.
Top-down theories state that overall life satisfaction influences (or even determines) our life satisfaction in many domains. Nonetheless, for most people, overall life satisfaction and satisfaction in the multiple domains of life are closely related.
Based on extensive studies on satisfaction with life and happiness (since 1980), Ed Diener has identified four main features of a happy life:
Psychological wealth is more than money; it includes your attitude, goals and engagement at work.
Happiness not only feels good, but it is also beneficial to relationships, work and health.
It is helpful to have realistic expectations about happiness. No one is completely happy all the time.
Contemplating and thinking are essential parts of happiness. Boosting our cognition can increase happiness if done appropriately.
Quality of life has also been studied as an expression of SWB. Although its definition varies, it is usually measured as a build-up or aggregate of well-being across several life domains and may include subjective and objective components.
Personality and Well-being
Earlier studies using the Big Five model of personality found that openness was linked with personal growth, agreeableness with positive relationships, and extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism with environmental mastery, purpose in life and self-acceptance (Ryff, 2014). Similar results showed that personality traits strongly predict well-being (Joshanloo and Rastegar, 2007; Ryff, 2008).
For example, longitudinal studies have shown links between early personality profiles (teenhood) and midlife well-being. Teenage females who were more outgoing (extraverted) had higher well-being (on all dimensions) in midlife. Teenage neuroticism, in contrast, predicted lower well-being in all dimensions. Moreover, interactions between personality traits were used to predict changes in well-being, where for instance, openness to experience was found to increase extraversion, predicting higher well-being, but it also amplified neuroticism, indicating higher distress (Bardi and Ryff, 2007).
A variety of other psychological variables have been linked with well-being. Optimism, for example, predicts higher well-being, with the effects mediated by a sense of control. Stable self-esteem predicts higher scores on autonomy, environmental mastery and purpose in life. Emotional regulation strategies positively predict well-being; however, suppressing emotions is a negative predictor of well-being.
Interpersonal well-being (positive relations with others) has been linked with self-reported empathy and emotional intelligence. Cross-cultural research has shown that high independence (personal control) predicted higher well-being in the US, whereas high interdependence predicted higher well-being in Japan (Lopes, 2003; Grühn, 2008; Kitayama, 2010).
Flourishing
Flourishing is a central concept in positive psychology. According to Fredrickson and Losada (2005), flourishing is about “living within an optimal range of human functioning, one that signifies goodness, growth and resilience." They believe that four main components characterise flourishing: a) goodness, marked by happiness, satisfaction and superior functioning; b) generativity, marked by broadened thought, action repertoires and behavioural flexibility; c) growth, marked by gains in enduring personal and social resources; and d) resilience, marked by survival and growth in the aftermath of adversity.
Flourishing has also been defined (partly based on Fredrickson's broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions) as a state where people experience positive social, emotional and psychological functioning most of the time. In more philosophical terms, this means living a good life, an engaged life, and a meaningful life. It requires developing personal attributes that exhibit character strengths and virtues commonly agreed upon across different cultures (Seligman, Steen, Park and Peterson, 2005). On the other hand, languishing includes a state where people describe their lives as "hollow" or "empty" (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005).
Psychologists can study flourishing in relation to many other concepts in positive psychology. For example, they can measure the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect and perceived satisfaction with life. Flourishing can also be measured through self-report measures, where people are asked about their emotions, fulfilment and meaning in life.
Corey Keyes (2002) has identified the indicators of positive feelings and functioning by reviewing dimensions and scales of subjective well-being. He depicted flourishing as a situation where the individual has had no episodes of major depression in the past year and possesses a high level of well-being (as indicated by high positive affect, low negative affect and life satisfaction). This shows increased psychological well-being, including self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy and positive relationships. Positive relationships depend on high social competencies, including social acceptance, social integration and social contributions.
The concept of flourishing has been criticised for lacking extensive research and having a weak theoretical basis.
Resources and Further Reading
Sousa, L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Life satisfaction. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encylopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (Vol. 2, pp. 667-676) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The journal of positive psychology, 3(2), 137-152.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (2009). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. In Culture and well-being (pp. 71-91). Springer, Dordrecht.
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100(2), 185-207.
Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 25-41.
Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The journal of positive psychology, 2(3), 149-156.
Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. In The science of well-being (pp. 11-58). Springer, Dordrecht.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (Eds.). (2003). Culture and subjective well-being. MIT Press.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. Handbook of positive psychology, 2, 63-73.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). "Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (6): 1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
Fava GA: Well-being therapy: conceptual and technical issues. Psychother Psychosom 1999;68: 171-179.
Ruini, C., & Fava, G. A. (2004). Clinical Applications of Well-Being Therapy. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (p. 371–387). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Guidi J, Fava GA, Bech P, Paykel ES: The Clinical Interview for Depression: a comprehensive review of studies and cliometrics properties. Psychother Psychosom 2011; 80: 10-27.
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 83(1), 10-28.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). "The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life". Journal of Health and Social Behaviour. 43 (2): 207–222.
Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American psychologist, 60(7), 678.
Fava GA: Well-Being Therapy. Treatment Manual and Clinical Applications. Basel, Karger, 2016.
Jahoda M: Current concepts of positive mental health. New York, Basic Books, 1958.
Hedonic Adaptation
Hedonic adaptation suggests that the impact of both positive and negative events on people’s perception of their happiness (subjective well-being and satisfaction with life) will be reduced over time. It includes the concept of a “happiness set point," suggesting that we generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout our lives despite the events. This idea has been conceptualised as a “hedonic treadmill” since people must continually work to maintain a certain level of happiness.
Hedonic adaptation involves cognitive and emotional changes, which include a shift in our values, attention and goals, as well as a change in our interpretation of the new situation. Moreover, desensitisation of our neurochemical pathways (in the brain) limits positive or negative emotions. The other factor in hedonic adaptation is our tendency to construct elaborate justifications for our circumstances through a process that social theorist Gregg Easterbrook (American writer, 1953) calls "abundance denial".
"Life has gotten dramatically better for almost everyone in the Western world during the past half-century, yet people are no happier. Happiness must come from within; money cannot buy it. Whether or not we obtain happiness will probably always be unrelated to whether life is getting better."
Gregg Easterbrook, The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse.
Brickman and Campbell (1971) coined the term “Hedonic Treadmill” in their article "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society", describing the tendency of people to keep a stable baseline of happiness despite external events and fluctuations in their circumstances.
Frederick and Lowenstein (1999) mentioned three things that affect hedonic adaptation. a) shifting adaptation levels, b) desensitisation and c) sensitisation.
Shifting adaptation levels occur when a person experiences a shift in what is perceived as a neutral stimulus but maintains sensitivity to stimulus differences. For example, when people get a pay raise, they are initially happier, but they then habituate to the larger salary and return to their previous level of happiness (or their happiness set point). However, they are still pleased when they get a bonus.
Desensitisation decreases our sensitivity in general, which reduces our sensitivity to change. For example, those who have lived in war zones for extended periods may become desensitised to the daily destruction and emotionally become less affected by losses that once have been shocking or too upsetting.
Sensitisation is the strengthening of a neurological response to a stimulus. For example, if a loud sound is suddenly heard, an individual may be startled and be shocked at that sound. If the sound occurs repeatedly, the individual will react more strongly. It is essentially an exaggerated startle response and is often seen in trauma survivors. For example, the sound of a car backfiring might sound like a gunshot to a war veteran, and the veteran may drop to the ground to take cover, even if there is no threat present.
Harry Helson (American psychologist, 1898–1977) proposed the Adaptation Level theory (or AL theory 1947), which holds that perception of stimuli is dependent upon comparison with former stimulations (it is relative). According to this Gestalt-type theory (referring to the principle of Gestalt psychology that treats humans as organised wholes that are more than the sum of their parts), subjective judgements are necessarily relative to the prevailing norms. In other words, AL theory promotes the idea that behaviour is adaptive (i.e., explained by past outcomes) rather than purposive (i.e., defined by prospects). In short, there is an adaption level for every moment of stimulation, which changes in time and with varying stimulation conditions. The adaptation level theory was developed using an experimental approach that caught the attention of both psychologists and economists working on welfare analysis and behavioural research.
Later, Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman (1978) examined the hedonic treadmill through Helson's AL theory framework. After all, the hedonic treadmill functions like most other adaptations. Sensitising or desensitising a person to a situation can change their rationale and help them accept or adapt to it, which may otherwise be unbearable. In “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?" they were among the first to investigate the hedonic treadmill. Lottery winners and paraplegics were compared to a control group. As predicted, comparison (with past experiences and their current acquaintances) and habituation (to the new situation) affected their happiness levels so that after the initial impact of highly positive or negative events, their happiness typically returned to average levels. While not longitudinal, this interview-based study began a large body of work exploring the relativity of happiness.
Adaptation level theory explains the hedonic adaptation by suggesting that both contrast (comparison) and habituation will operate to prevent the winning of a fortune from elevating happiness as much as might be expected. Compared with (or in contrast to) the peak winning experience, the impact of ordinary pleasures is lowered. At the same time, habituation should eventually reduce the value of new pleasures (which were made possible by winning).
In one study, researchers compared a sample of 22 major lottery winners with 22 controls and with a group of 29 paralysed accident victims who had been previously interviewed. As predicted, lottery winners were not happier than controls and took significantly less pleasure from mundane events.
Dynamic equilibrium theory of subjective well-being (Headey and Waring, 1992), or the set point theory, suggests a correlation between measures of SWB diminishing and time. It has been shown that personality traits (personality appears to be one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of SWB) and life events are also associated with subsequent changes in SWB.
Initially, dynamic equilibrium theory proposed that individuals have their own set point (equilibrium level) of SWB and revert to that point once the psychological impact of major life events has diminished. However, the new evidence (highly tentative until replicated) shows that a small but significant number of people show substantial and permanent upward or downward changes in their SWB. It has been suggested that people most likely to record significant changes in their satisfaction with life have personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism and openness to experience.
Brickman and Campbell originally implied that everyone returns to the same neutral set point after a significant emotional life event. However, in a literature review, "Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill, Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being" (2006), Diener, Lucas, and Scollon concluded that people are not hedonically neutral. Individuals have different set points which are at least partially heritable. They also concluded that individuals might have multiple happiness set points, such as a life satisfaction set point and a subjective well-being set point. Hence, one's level of happiness does not have one set point but can vary within a given range. Diener and colleagues point to longitudinal and cross-sectional research to argue that happiness set point can change, and individuals vary in the rate and extent of adaptation to changes in their circumstances.
Hedonic Adaptation Prevention
In contrast to hedonic adaptation, several other things promote happiness and make it last longer (sustainable happiness). In this respect, two conceptual models, the “sustainable happiness model” and the “hedonic adaptation prevention model,” as well as the notion of change in circumstances and activities (variety), can potentially help people experience the upper end of their happiness “set point” for much longer.
According to the sustainable happiness model (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade, 2005), there are three contributing factors to people’s long-term happiness: a) their set point, b) life circumstances, and c) intentional activities (see happiness pie chart). The happiness set point is an inherently fixed point with limited flexibility. Life’s circumstances are often hard to change, but intentional activities (such as acts of kindness, gratitude and savouring) are voluntary choices that can be controlled. Therefore, they represent the most promising ways to counteract hedonic adaptation and sustain happiness for longer and in more settings.
The Hedonic Adaptation Prevention model specifies two ways of hedonic adaptation: 1) Decline in positive emotions generated by the positive change. 2) Increase aspirations for even more positivity. The model also specifies two moderators that can prevent hedonic adaptation from happening. a) Continued appreciation of the original life change and b) Continued variety in change-related experiences.
People adapt to positive life changes due to increasing aspirations and declining positive events and emotions associated with the change. Fortunately, enduring happiness is possible, as adaptation can be slowed or halted in numerous ways, such as a greater appreciation for the good things in life and introducing greater variety.
Keeping things fresh and exciting (introducing variety) is the most crucial convertor of boredom because of its vital role in reducing hedonic adaptation. The key to keeping boredom at bay and maintaining a higher level of happiness is participating in several varying positive events. Introducing variety provides an ongoing stream of new positive activities and emotions to keep people at the upper end of their natural happiness capacity (Sheldon, Boehm and Lyubomirsky, 2013).
Sustainable Happiness
Sustainable happiness is also about global sustainable well-being. This idea offers a fresh approach to happiness that invites reflection on sustainability issues and opportunities to enhance our quality of life and contribute to individuals, communities and global well-being. Catherine O'Brien (associate professor, Cape Breton University, Canada, 2010) defined sustainable happiness as the pursuit of happiness that does not exploit other people, the environment or future generations. Sustainable happiness holds significant possibilities for individuals, communities and global well-being.
Sustainable happiness considers that our happiness is interconnected with other people, species, and the natural environment through a remarkable web of interdependence. This connection indicates that our daily actions and decisions contribute to or detract from our well-being and that of others. Sometimes, things that make us happy may harm our community, ecosystems or future generations. It may also involve reawakening the joy from simple pleasures or generating options for a lifestyle change. For example, taking a moment to exercise gratitude is a fantastic way to neutralise the constant barrage of media messages that tell us we don’t have enough stuff or that we aren’t good, rich or beautiful enough and so on.
resources and Further Reading
Lyubomirsky, S. (2010). 11 Hedonic Adaptation to Positive and Negative Experiences. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping, 200.
Folkman, S. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping. Oxford University Press.
Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation prevention model. The Oxford handbook of happiness, 901-914.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the hedonic adaptation prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670-680.
Bao, K. J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). Using the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention Model to Extend the Success of Positive Interventions. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions, 373.
Headey, B. Subjective Well-Being: Revisions to Dynamic Equilibrium Theory using National Panel Data and Panel Regression Methods. Soc Indic Res 79, 369–403 (2006).
Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M. J., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & van der Heijden, P. G. (2005). Finances and well-being: a dynamic equilibrium model of resources. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 210.
Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 731–739.
Luhmann, M., & Intelisano, S. (2018). Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). The promise of sustainable happiness.
O'Brien, C. (2008). Sustainable happiness: How happiness studies can contribute to a more sustainable future. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(4), 289.
O'Brien, C. (2016). Education for sustainable happiness and well-being. Routledge.
Gross National Happiness
The term "Gross National Happiness" was coined in 1979 by the then king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, during an interview with a Financial Times journalist at Mumbai airport. The king said, "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product,” expressing a concept that had been developed since 1970.
Subsequently (in 2008), Gross National Happiness (GNH) was established as a leading project of the government of Bhutan, and the index was used to measure the collective happiness and well-being of the population. In 2011, the UN General Assembly passed the resolution "Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development," urging member nations to follow Bhutan's example and measure happiness and well-being and calling happiness a "fundamental human goal."
Later (2012), in a convention called “Well-being and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm,” led by Bhutan's prime minister and the secretary-general of the United Nations, the first World Happiness Report was issued, and shortly after, March 20th was declared to be the International Day of Happiness (March 20th ).
GNH (a measure of a nation’s collective happiness) was supposed to be a holistic and sustainable approach to development. It balanced material and non-material values with the belief that humans inherently wish to achieve happiness. The objective of GNH was to achieve balanced growth in all the facets of life essential for happiness.
The GNH index includes traditional areas of socio-economic concern, such as living standards, health and education as well as less established aspects, such as cultural and psychological well-being. It was meant to be a holistic reflection of the general well-being of the Bhutanese population rather than a subjective psychological ranking of happiness alone.
GNH is characterised by valuing collective happiness as the goal, by emphasising harmony with nature and traditional values, as expressed in the four pillars of GNH and the nine domains of happiness that it measures. The four pillars of GNH are a) sustainable and equitable socio-economic development; b) environmental conservation; c) preservation and promotion of culture, and d) good governance.
The nine domains of happiness that GNH tries to measure are 1) psychological well-being, 2) health (in general), 3) use of time, 4) education, 5) cultural diversity and resilience, 6) good governance, 7) community vitality, 8) ecological diversity and resilience, and 9) living standards.
Altogether, there are 33 indicators in the nine domains above, and the index seeks to measure the nation’s well-being directly by starting with each person’s achievements in every indicator. The GNH index identifies four groups: unhappy, narrowly happy, extensively happy, and deeply happy. The analysis ideally explores the happiness people enjoy before focusing on how policies can increase happiness among unhappy and narrowly happy people.
Each domain is composed of subjective (self-reported survey) and objective indicators. The domains weigh equally, but the indicators within each domain differ by weight. The domains work differently depending on the person's circumstances. For instance, if there are two people, one whose life is consumed with working, leaving barely any time for friends and family, the other, though not as good at working, still has enough time to spend quality time with their friends and family. The person who spends time with family and friends has a larger GNH than those who work relentlessly. In other words, people are happier or can be happier when they focus on the details of a balanced life.
Many other local and national governments have undertaken efforts to measure happiness and well-being (also termed Beyond GDP), but they have not used Bhutan's version of the GNH index, such as the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. Several cities and many companies and organisations in the US and elsewhere have also implemented sustainability practices inspired by GNH.
Criticism of GNH
Several scholars have noted that Bhutanese GNH's values are distinctly Buddhist, as Buddhism is the core of the country's cultural values. In contrast, the other models are designed for secular governments (or organisations) and do not include religious behaviour as a measurement component.
Critics have described Bhutanese GNH as a propaganda tool the government uses to distract from ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses it has committed. The Bhutanese (relatively) democratic government started in 2008. Before then, the government practised massive ethnic cleansing of the non-Buddhist population (Nepalese of Hindu faith) in the name of GNH cultural preservation.
According to Human Rights Watch, "Over 100,000 people of Nepalese origin and Hindu faith were expelled (throughout the 1990s) from the country because they would not integrate with Bhutan’s Buddhist culture." The Refugee Council of Australia stated that "it is extraordinary and shocking that a nation can get away with expelling one-sixth of its people (at the time) and somehow keep its international reputation largely intact. The Government of Bhutan should be known, not for Gross National Happiness but for Gross National Hypocrisy."
Other criticism focuses on the standard of living in Bhutan. In an article written in 2004 in The Economist magazine, "The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is not a fairy tale paradise; it is home to perhaps 900,000 people, most of whom live in grinding poverty." Other criticism of GNH cites "increasing levels of political corruption, the rapid spread of diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis, gang violence, abuses against women and ethnic minorities, shortages in food and medicine, and economic miseries."
Even Mr Tobgay, Bhutan’s prime minister between 2013 and 2018, has cast doubt on the country's pursuit of GNH. He told AFP (an international news agency based in Paris) that “the concept is overused and masks problems with corruption and low standards of living.” While he supported the notion that economic growth is not the be-all and end-all of development, he acknowledged that GNH should not distract from tackling Bhutan's pressing problems, including chronic unemployment, poverty and corruption.
In the early 2010s, the Bhutanese Government banned tobacco, restricted TV channels and the internet, made traditional dresses mandatory in public places, introduced travel restrictions and took many other draconian measures to limit Bhutanese liberty and freedom. Interestingly, the Bhutanese government is keen on GNH as long as happiness means obedience. According to the World Happiness Report 2019, Bhutan is 95th of 156 countries.
Difficulties with Measuring Happiness
First, happiness is notoriously tricky to define. Everyone knows what happiness means in a particular context, but there is no single accepted meaning that we can successfully measure. Second, happiness is an inherently vague and subjective experience that resists being forced into a numerical scale.
Even if researchers had a simple and universal definition, translating that definition into a (Likert type) scale (for example, from one to five) is fraught with problems. For instance, how can people understand the endpoints of the scale? Does five mean the happiest you can imagine or the happiest you reasonably expect to be? Moreover, answers to either of these questions depend on socioeconomic status, upbringing and culture. “an easily satisfied pauper may report a higher happiness level than a prince who is never satisfied” (Professor Mark D. White, Department of Philosophy, College of Staten Island, City University of New York).
Third, it is unclear how social policies would be implemented using happiness measures, even if the issues with definition and measurement could be solved. Would the government aim to maximise happiness, and at what cost? How would it account for people's trade-offs between simple pleasure now and deeper fulfilment later, such as enrolling in medical school or training for the Olympics?
Psychological research also suggests that our happiness levels are mainly determined by genetics (about 50%) and our own choices (40%; see happiness pie chart). This view implies that such policies may be of limited use, making people happier to any significant degree or for any significant length of time. If this research (which is controversial) is valid, then all the efforts to define and measure happiness may be futile.
Ultimately, all these problems are abstract and conceptual and cannot be solved simply by developing better measuring methods. Happiness is too vague to be defined accurately, too subjective and qualitative to be measured in numerical scales, and too ethically complex to translate into social policies without extensive political discussions. If a government truly wants to increase national happiness and well-being, the best thing it can do is to leave choices to those who know what happiness means to them, i.e., the people themselves (Professor Mark D. White, department of philosophy, College of Staten Island, City University of New York).
Why not Gross Domestic Product?
Wartime necessities and the crisis of economic measurements in the 1940s led to the introduction of a highly popular economic index: Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This index shows the value of a country's goods and services each year (domestic means national).
It took a couple of decades for GDP to be accepted as an international norm, and it became a means of comparing nations in the 1960s. GDP is a composite index that has been a defining indicator of countries' development and prosperity for many decades. However, GDP ignores environmental impacts, income inequalities, health and welfare, and people's happiness.
What is important for ordinary people is indeed beyond GDP. Robert F Kennedy (American politician, lawyer, US Attorney General, and a US Senator, 1960s) famously said, “GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worth living.”
Since the 1990s, the world has needed a new measurement tool (index) that reflects how much we have produced and if they are sustainable, fair to all citizens, environmentally clean, and help us live a happier, healthier life.
So, economists and social scientists have devised several interesting and practical ideas to satisfy these needs. Such concepts include the Human Development Index by Mahbub Ul-Haq and Amartya Sen, the Green GDP by Joseph Stiglitz, the Genuine Progress Indicator, the Social Progress Index, the Policy Effectiveness Index, the Happy Planet Index, the Better Life Index, the Canadian Index of Well-being, and (of course) GNH by the government of Bhutan. They all provide alternatives to GDP and look at areas such as health, happiness, education, ecology and living standards to create an index that accurately reflects real life and provides policymakers with a better guide to allocating investments.
In 2008, the former French president Nicolas Sarkozy established a commission to consider an alternative for GDP. The commission consisted of Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. In September 2009, they published their conclusion, which recommended assessing health, education, environment, employment, material well-being, interpersonal connectedness, pollical engagement, sustainability and equality (fair distribution of wealth and other social goods) to help governments get a better picture of how well their people are living.
Evaluating people’s welfare, well-being, and happiness remains a big challenge. However, designing and implementing policies that enhance social and personal well-being (including liberty, freedom and human rights) will be an even more significant concern. The traditional GDP and other purely financial (cost/benefit) indicators are not enough or relevant nowadays. We should move beyond GDP, measure well-being more often and comprehensively, and use such measurements to inform our social and economic policies to improve people’s quality of life.
Resources and Further Reading
Zurick, D. (2006). Gross national happiness and environmental status in Bhutan. Geographical Review, 96(4), 657-681.
Daga, G. (2014). Towards a New Development Paradigm: Critical Analysis of Gross National Happiness Index.
Bates, W. (2009). Gross national happiness. Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature, 23(2), 1-16.
Priesner, S. (2004). Gross National Happiness–Bhutan’s vision of development and its challenges. Indigeneity and Universality in Social Science: A South Asian Response, 212-232.
White, M. D. (2014). The problems with measuring and using happiness for policy purposes. Mercatus Research.
White, M. D. (2014). Happiness. In “The Illusion of Well-Being (pp. 9-49)”. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
