Very Happy People – Ed Diener and Martin Seligman
Abstract—A sample of 222 undergraduates was screened for high happiness using multiple
confirming assessment filters. We compared the upper 10% of consistently very happy people
with average and very unhappy people. The very happy people were highly social, and had
stronger romantic and other social relationships than less happy groups. They were more
extraverted, more agreeable, and less neurotic, and scored lower on several psychopathology
scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Compared with the less happy
groups, the happiest respondents did not exercise significantly more, participate in religious
activities significantly more, or experience more objectively defined good events. No variable
was sufficient for happiness, but good social relations were necessary. Members of the
happiest group experienced positive, but not ecstatic, feelings most of the time, and they
reported occasional negative moods. This suggests that very happy people do have a
functioning emotion system that can react appropriately to life events.
, Is the Study of Happiness a Worthy Scientific Pursuit? – Jacolyn Norrish and
Dianne Vella Brodrick
Abstract This paper critiques the view that the study of happiness is not a worthy scientific
pursuit. The happiness set point and hedonic treadmill theories denote the complexity of
increasing happiness levels due to genetic limitations and adaptation, however, there is
mounting evidence to suggest that with the use of appropriate measures and specific
interventions aimed at fostering strengths and virtues, happiness can be increased.
Furthermore, the benefits of investigating methods for increasing happiness include
improvements in physical, psychological and social health and well-being. It is concluded that
approaching human needs from a top down or holistic standpoint where individuals can use
their strengths to overcome life’s challenges, is beneficial to health and well-being. Hence, the
study of happiness is a worthy scientific pursuit.
1 Introduction
Happiness and what it means to live a good life has been the basis of philosophical, religious
and scholarly debate for centuries. In contemporary culture, people are increasingly looking
for ways to become happier, as indicated by the growing self-help sections of bookstores.
However, only recently have social scientists begun to systematically study happiness. The
purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether the increased investigation of positive aspects is a
worthy, scientific pursuit. More specifically the first aim of this paper is to examine the notion
that the pursuit of happiness is a luxury, which neglects more important aspects of human
suffering. The second aim involves the evaluation of two issues that pose significant
challenges to the justification of happiness research; (1) happiness set point theory, which
advocates that individual happiness levels remain constant despite changes in external
circumstances and therefore renders efforts to increase happiness as futile and (2) whether the
measurement of happiness can occur with scientific rigour.
1.1 Defining Happiness
Often the terms happiness and subjective well-being have been used interchangeably with the
latter being the more scientific term. Substantial ambiguity and variation is evident within
scientific discourse regarding the definition of happiness and therefore, this paper will briefly
outline several related theories and definitions of happiness. However, the definition that will
be used for evaluative purposes is that subjective well-being includes: (1) a cognitive
component assessing overall satisfaction with life and (2) an affective component which is
further divided into the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect.
1.2 The Happiness Set Point
The happiness set point theory, also called the dynamic equilibrium theory, asserts that
despite changes in individual’s circumstances, happiness levels remain remarkably constant
over time. Clearly, the happiness set point theory challenges the viability of undertaking
research on interventions designed to increase individual happiness.
1.3 Happiness as a Trait
As opposed to happiness being a transient state, the perspective that happiness is a trait posits
that happiness is a temperamental disposition reflecting a tendency to appraise events and
situations in a particular way (Veenhoven 1994). The perspective that happiness is stable and
consistent across time and situations leads to pessimism about the potential success of
research that investigates how happiness levels can be enhanced. In sum, while subjective
, well-being may be related to personality traits such as extroversion, changes in happiness
reports over long periods of time provide evidence against the theory that happiness is a trait.
1.4 How Relative is Happiness?
The argument that happiness is relative proposes that individuals’ happiness evaluations are
based on subjective judgements of their situation compared with the situations of others,
earlier situations and future goals and aspirations. To summarise it seems that subjective
comparisons do not account for all variance in subjective well-being.
1.5 Increasing Happiness
Consistent with the view that happiness is somewhat malleable, Lykken (1999) proposed a
formula for happiness: Happiness = S + C + V. This formula states that happiness is
comprised of the individual’s set happiness point (S), the individual’s circumstances (C) and
voluntary factors that are under the individual’s control (V). Numerous psychologists have
developed specific strategies aiming to empower individuals to increase their happiness.
According to Seligman (2003b) significant support for the success of happiness interventions
is provided by testimonials of people who have used the strategies and report meaningfully
increased happiness levels.
1.6 Gratitude and Kindness
There have been promising developments suggesting gratitude and kindness have positive
ramifications on individual happiness. Polak and McCullough (2006) have claimed that
gratitude has the potential to counteract materialism and increase subjective well-being.
Kindness may also be positively correlated with happiness.
1.7 Happiness, Wealth and Materialism
It has been found that after basic human needs are met, happiness is not clearly associated
with wealth or material affluence; a finding seemingly consistent with the happiness set point
theory and partly explained by hedonic adaptation. gical fulfilment (Polak and McCullough
2006; Van Boven 2005). According to Wilson and Gilbert’s (2005) theory of affective
forecasting, individuals do not accurately predict the amount of happiness events will cause
them and therefore are motivated by goals that do not effectively enhance their happiness
levels. This is consistent with the finding that materialism does not result in sustained
increases in happiness, as potentially, consumers overestimate the intensity and duration of
the pleasure they will receive from purchasing a new product.
1.8 Happiness on a National Level
Complementary to research that investigates happiness on an individual level is research that
considers happiness within and between nations motivated by the assumption that social,
economic and political change can increase average subjective well-being within nations and
societies. Set point theory and variations thereof, (i.e. hedonic adaptation, the theory that
happiness is a trait and the theory that happiness is relative) pose problems to the justification
of happiness research as they insinuate that despite the investment of researcher’s time and
financial resources, efforts to increase individual happiness will prove futile. Therefore, the
happiness set point theory does not pose an insurmountable challenge to the justification of
research into happiness.
1.9 The Empirical Measurement of Happiness
Abstract—A sample of 222 undergraduates was screened for high happiness using multiple
confirming assessment filters. We compared the upper 10% of consistently very happy people
with average and very unhappy people. The very happy people were highly social, and had
stronger romantic and other social relationships than less happy groups. They were more
extraverted, more agreeable, and less neurotic, and scored lower on several psychopathology
scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Compared with the less happy
groups, the happiest respondents did not exercise significantly more, participate in religious
activities significantly more, or experience more objectively defined good events. No variable
was sufficient for happiness, but good social relations were necessary. Members of the
happiest group experienced positive, but not ecstatic, feelings most of the time, and they
reported occasional negative moods. This suggests that very happy people do have a
functioning emotion system that can react appropriately to life events.
, Is the Study of Happiness a Worthy Scientific Pursuit? – Jacolyn Norrish and
Dianne Vella Brodrick
Abstract This paper critiques the view that the study of happiness is not a worthy scientific
pursuit. The happiness set point and hedonic treadmill theories denote the complexity of
increasing happiness levels due to genetic limitations and adaptation, however, there is
mounting evidence to suggest that with the use of appropriate measures and specific
interventions aimed at fostering strengths and virtues, happiness can be increased.
Furthermore, the benefits of investigating methods for increasing happiness include
improvements in physical, psychological and social health and well-being. It is concluded that
approaching human needs from a top down or holistic standpoint where individuals can use
their strengths to overcome life’s challenges, is beneficial to health and well-being. Hence, the
study of happiness is a worthy scientific pursuit.
1 Introduction
Happiness and what it means to live a good life has been the basis of philosophical, religious
and scholarly debate for centuries. In contemporary culture, people are increasingly looking
for ways to become happier, as indicated by the growing self-help sections of bookstores.
However, only recently have social scientists begun to systematically study happiness. The
purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether the increased investigation of positive aspects is a
worthy, scientific pursuit. More specifically the first aim of this paper is to examine the notion
that the pursuit of happiness is a luxury, which neglects more important aspects of human
suffering. The second aim involves the evaluation of two issues that pose significant
challenges to the justification of happiness research; (1) happiness set point theory, which
advocates that individual happiness levels remain constant despite changes in external
circumstances and therefore renders efforts to increase happiness as futile and (2) whether the
measurement of happiness can occur with scientific rigour.
1.1 Defining Happiness
Often the terms happiness and subjective well-being have been used interchangeably with the
latter being the more scientific term. Substantial ambiguity and variation is evident within
scientific discourse regarding the definition of happiness and therefore, this paper will briefly
outline several related theories and definitions of happiness. However, the definition that will
be used for evaluative purposes is that subjective well-being includes: (1) a cognitive
component assessing overall satisfaction with life and (2) an affective component which is
further divided into the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect.
1.2 The Happiness Set Point
The happiness set point theory, also called the dynamic equilibrium theory, asserts that
despite changes in individual’s circumstances, happiness levels remain remarkably constant
over time. Clearly, the happiness set point theory challenges the viability of undertaking
research on interventions designed to increase individual happiness.
1.3 Happiness as a Trait
As opposed to happiness being a transient state, the perspective that happiness is a trait posits
that happiness is a temperamental disposition reflecting a tendency to appraise events and
situations in a particular way (Veenhoven 1994). The perspective that happiness is stable and
consistent across time and situations leads to pessimism about the potential success of
research that investigates how happiness levels can be enhanced. In sum, while subjective
, well-being may be related to personality traits such as extroversion, changes in happiness
reports over long periods of time provide evidence against the theory that happiness is a trait.
1.4 How Relative is Happiness?
The argument that happiness is relative proposes that individuals’ happiness evaluations are
based on subjective judgements of their situation compared with the situations of others,
earlier situations and future goals and aspirations. To summarise it seems that subjective
comparisons do not account for all variance in subjective well-being.
1.5 Increasing Happiness
Consistent with the view that happiness is somewhat malleable, Lykken (1999) proposed a
formula for happiness: Happiness = S + C + V. This formula states that happiness is
comprised of the individual’s set happiness point (S), the individual’s circumstances (C) and
voluntary factors that are under the individual’s control (V). Numerous psychologists have
developed specific strategies aiming to empower individuals to increase their happiness.
According to Seligman (2003b) significant support for the success of happiness interventions
is provided by testimonials of people who have used the strategies and report meaningfully
increased happiness levels.
1.6 Gratitude and Kindness
There have been promising developments suggesting gratitude and kindness have positive
ramifications on individual happiness. Polak and McCullough (2006) have claimed that
gratitude has the potential to counteract materialism and increase subjective well-being.
Kindness may also be positively correlated with happiness.
1.7 Happiness, Wealth and Materialism
It has been found that after basic human needs are met, happiness is not clearly associated
with wealth or material affluence; a finding seemingly consistent with the happiness set point
theory and partly explained by hedonic adaptation. gical fulfilment (Polak and McCullough
2006; Van Boven 2005). According to Wilson and Gilbert’s (2005) theory of affective
forecasting, individuals do not accurately predict the amount of happiness events will cause
them and therefore are motivated by goals that do not effectively enhance their happiness
levels. This is consistent with the finding that materialism does not result in sustained
increases in happiness, as potentially, consumers overestimate the intensity and duration of
the pleasure they will receive from purchasing a new product.
1.8 Happiness on a National Level
Complementary to research that investigates happiness on an individual level is research that
considers happiness within and between nations motivated by the assumption that social,
economic and political change can increase average subjective well-being within nations and
societies. Set point theory and variations thereof, (i.e. hedonic adaptation, the theory that
happiness is a trait and the theory that happiness is relative) pose problems to the justification
of happiness research as they insinuate that despite the investment of researcher’s time and
financial resources, efforts to increase individual happiness will prove futile. Therefore, the
happiness set point theory does not pose an insurmountable challenge to the justification of
research into happiness.
1.9 The Empirical Measurement of Happiness
