Happiness, that is, depends on what makes you feel happy, which is why psychologists often call it “subjective wellbeing.” But from studies of various age and population groups in the United States and abroad, they have reached some objective conclusions on the makings of happiness. What comes up consistently at the top of the charts is not, as many might expect, success, youth, good looks or any of those enviable assets. The clear winner is relationships. Close ones. Followed by happy marriage. Next comes religious faith, of almost any kind. “Supportive, intimate connections with other people seem tremendously important,” says psychologist David Myers, whose “The Pursuit of Happiness” is one of a cluster of recent books in the field. Using simple survey questions, Myers found that the least happy people are those in unhappy marriages. Happiest are those who are married to their “best friend.” If you can say that, says Myers, “chances are you’ve described not just your marriage but your whole life as happy.”
It turns out that a lot of people are happy about a lot of things. Life may be nasty and short, but more people register on the high side of the Life Satisfaction Scale than the low side. The scale, designed in its current form by University of Illinois psychologist Ed Diener, asks among other things: “Have you gotten the most important things you wanted in life?” Contentment seems steadier in the United States than elsewhere, but it’s surprisingly prevalent throughout the Western world. “In most studies people report they feel predominantly pleasant emotions three fourths of the time and unpleasant ones a fourth of the time,” he says. “The relationship between the two-the ‘hedonic balance’ some people will define that as happiness.”
The hedonic balance is just one weapon in the growing armamentarium of the happy-hunters. Positive and negative emotions, or affect, are reported via an Affectometer. Naturally. Another instrument, the Experience Sampling method, equips subjects with beepers so they can be beeped at any time of day to fill out electronic questionnaires. Some researchers prefer the simple, bottom-line Happiness Question, which asks: “Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days?”
All this weighing and sifting was pretty much left to the opinion pollsters until around the mid-1970s when some psychologists got the novel idea of studying what might be right with us. The effort provokes skepticism from psychologists who find it frivolous. But many mental-health professionals contend it can have serious applications. For instance, information from studies of resilient children is used to help those more vulnerable to adversity.
The field is slowly gaining recognition, if not gobs of funding. Oxford University now has an actual happiness laboratory, headed by social psychologist Michael Argyle. As part of his work he conducts “mood induction” studies, gauging the emotional impact of music and other stimuli. In one study people were asked to think negative thoughts for 15 minutes, and the effect on their mood was measured. Later, they were urged to talk about their troubles for a few minutes. The conclusion: “Talking about bad things isn’t nearly as bad as thinking about bad things,” says Argyle. “It halves the negative affect to share with someone else.” But better yet, he says, is leisure. “Go out and play tennis. A noisy game is often the best answer.”
A wild card in all this is the influence of genes. Studies of twins and adopted children have shown that some people are just born happy, although environment can shape personality too. That’s one reason factors like health, wealth and education come up relatively weak on the scales. “They seem to be overridden by temperament,” says Diener. Another reason is adaptability: win the lottery and your happiness leaps. But a year later you’re only marginally happier than before the windfall. “Major events lose their impact over time,” says University of London psychologist Michael Eysenck. “You adjust your lifestyle and your expectations.”
Eysenck likens the study of happiness to preventive medicine. “We should do whatever we can to keep people in a positive emotional state to begin with,” he says. But he sometimes has trouble applying his own medicine. He conducts his work on a shoestring because research grants remain desperately hard to get. “It does rather depress me,” Eysenck admits. Tennis, anyone?
