HUMAN HAPPINESS - ITS NATURE & ITS ATTAINMENT
VOLUME I: THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS
CHAPTER 9
THE BIG PICTURE
So far we've learned about human happiness in a general manner. We've explored the happy mood, we've learned about the objective and personality characteristics which seem to go with it, and we've seen how fundamental happy emotion is to our survival and prospering as a species.
But now, in the final Chapter of this Volume, we will turn our attention to a few of the larger questions regarding happiness...
THE CAUSE OF EMOTION: INSIDE OR OUTSIDE?
As time goes by our moods often change. The ups and downs of emotion constantly color our existence. But what is the ultimate cause of our emotions? Are our emotions simply a reaction to the outside situations and experiences we undergo? Or are they merely the result of inside physiological changes, which have little or nothing to do with the outside world?
The first answer that comes to mind is that outside circumstances are the causes of our emotions. It should be abundantly clear after reading the previous chapter of this book that happiness is caused by things that happen in the outside world. Income, social activity, meaningful work, the achievement of goals, and so on, appear time after time as the causes of happiness. Thus it seems obvious that happiness is a product of the situation we're living in.
However there is an alternative view. Some psychologists think that happiness is caused primarily by changing internal conditions of the body. Happiness, according to this view, is something that is triggered by certain optimal physiological and metabolic conditions that occur inside. This view suggests that when people feel happy, because of these internal conditions, the natural tendency is to "blame" the happiness on whatever outside circumstances are occurring. Thus we pin our happiness on outside events, but is really caused by independent physiological factors. (The adrenaline experiments we mentioned earlier support this idea: when aroused physiologically, people tend to respond by feeling the emotion that seems most appropriate to the situation.)
For the most part, however, very few psychologists buy the idea that happiness is caused solely by internal metabolic cycles. Of the hundred, or so studies on happiness, only a few of the earliest ones took the internal point of view (16, 17, 67, 68). The remainder of the studies take a decidedly environmental point of view -- and, as we have seen in earlier chapters, this view has enormous substantiation.
The two views are not, however, mutually exclusive. Certainly both processes, internal and external, can have an effect on happiness. For one thing, it is obvious that the physical state of an individual is going to effect how happy he might feel. An individual's ill health or physical discomfort cannot help but effect his feelings about the situation he's in. But on the other hand, there is ample evidence that outside circumstances and events have direct effects on the physiological state of the person. Our bodies continuously react to the information our senses receive from the outside -- indeed our whole physiology is designed to do just that: react.
Thus, outside circumstances affect our bodies physiology and our body's physiological condition, in turn, affects our view of outside circumstances. Furthermore, both these processes appear to operate somewhat independently of each other. Classic work on moods by Cattell hints that there may be two types of happiness: one caused by outside, environmental factors and another one caused by changing physiological conditions inside the body (31). Thus, at times we feel happy because of a pleasant event in the outside world, and at times our happiness flows from optimal physiological conditions. Psychologists find, when we relate this research to the three-dimensional theory discussed earlier, that it is the active/passive dimension (the dimension of bodily arousal) that relates more to changing inner conditions of the body than to outside events; the happiness/ unhappiness dimension, on the other hand, is controlled more by the events and situations in the outside world (31, 98).
My own view is that physiological influences account for less than 10 to 15% of one's happiness. The rest is due to non-physiological causes.
Of course these figures are for the vast majority of normal and healthy individuals. Outside these normal limits, these figures do not hold.
There is continually growing evidence that many instances of clinical depression and other major psychoses (particularly schizophrenia) have a strong genetic link. Brain damage, organic brain disease, tumors, chronic pain, or other abnormalities certainly make happiness difficult or impossible to achieve. And as we discussed in a previous Chapter, poor health greatly depletes happiness. In other words, there are many individuals who, because of genetic or physical detriments, find their happiness largely dominated by physiological factors. Likewise, though there is no confirmed evidence of this, one might assume that there are a small percentage of individuals who are genetically "born to be unhappy" -- people who's inborn physiology might doom them to an unhappy, lifelong mood.
But these are the exceptions, not the rule. For most of us, happiness is determined far more by outside circumstances than inside biochemistry.
HAPPINESS CYCLES
When we think about the body's physiology, we often think in terms of body-rhythms and cycles. Because of this, psychologists have studied the possibility that such body rhythms are reflected in happiness. Many studies have focused on examining "happiness cycles," to see if happiness ups and downs show any reliable or predictable pattern.
People seem quite fascinated by the possibility that regular mood cycles exist. Apparently, it is appealing to think that emotion rises and falls from happiness to unhappiness in a regular, predictable pattern. To many, it might comfortably explain why some days they feel up and others they feel down. Indeed, if the patterns proved regular, one might better plan for them.
Sadly for those who might find it reassuring, there are no regular, cyclical patterns, at least as far as happiness is concerned.
The data has been examined from many viewpoints, yet no reliable patterns appear either for groups taken as a whole, or for single individuals over long periods of time (38, 39, 67, 118, 131, 132, 201). Although a couple of early studies seemed to suggest some sort of uniform happiness cycles involving regular daily or monthly fluctuations (29, 60), the mass of more reliable research since then has failed to find any universal pattern to group or individual happiness ups and downs. As noted before, there is no scientific reason to believe that happiness, for the majority of individuals, is affected by certain days of the week or times of the year.
Reviewing the results of all major studies in this area, two things emerge. First, as far as large groups of people are concerned, there doesn't seem to be any happiness cycles that effect the masses as a whole. Secondly, even on an individual level, happiness cycles also fail to appear. For most people irregularity of happiness cycles is the rule (132, 201, 235). An individual's emotional ups and downs defy any cyclical pattern. Indeed, individual patterns are so random that no discernable scheme can be applied to them.
The appeal of mass patterning of happiness has its appeal. Perhaps if science could confirm the universal occurrence of "Blue Mondays" our work week might be cut one day short. Maybe if unhappiness struck more often in Spring, couples could be warned not to marry then. Even sly governments could plan tax hikes during the time of year the populace was most complacently happy, hoping they wouldn't mind! Imagine the benefits people might enjoy and profit from if mass happiness was predictable!
Sadly for the schemers, happiness patterns appear to be as individual and unpredictable as people are. In fact, such random patterns are what we should expect.
The concept of "happiness cycles" is based on the assumption that happiness is more internally and physiologically based. But as we have already determined, happiness is based more on outside circumstance -- and no one can predict how such circumstances will change.
MOODINESS AND HAPPINESS
Although there are no regular patterns to happiness, individuals differ dramatically in their daily emotionality.
Research shows that some people experience great variation in their mood during an average day. These are the "moody" people: those whose emotions change radically up and down during the day. On the other hand, there are the "stable" people: those individuals whose daily mood remains fairly steady and unchanging throughout the day.
"Moodiness" and "stableness" goes beyond daily fluctuation, it can also vary over many days -- some individuals being up one day and down the next, while others change very little, even over long periods of time (132, 300). Although such "moodiness" or "stableness" follows no regular cycle or repeating pattern, we can generally say that people tend to remain typically moody or typically stable throughout their lifetime. Such factors appear to be a rather permanent part of their overall personality.
Beyond moodiness and stableness of emotion, individual's also differ along another dimension: emotional vs. unemotional (21, 147, 201, 202, 241, 300). People tend to vary in terms of the actual amount of emotions they experience from day to day. Some individuals experience high amounts of emotion -- everyday is rich with many strong, intense feelings. Others, however, live relatively unemotional lives. Their emotional highs and lows vary little. Partially, such emotionality is a factor of age, for younger people are typically found to experience their emotions more strongly than more mature individuals (241).
The emotional / unemotional aspect of emotion appears to be somewhat independent of the moodiness/stableness dimension. One can be stable with strong emotion, stable with mild emotion, moody with strong emotion, etc.. But even more importantly, neither of these variable has any effect on a person's overall happiness. Stable or moody, lots of emotional experiences or few -- most studies show don't seem to find much happiness differences between these groups (21, 38, 39, 68, 132, 201, 202). However, if there is a difference, it would appear to favor the more emotionally stable (44, 112, 201, 300).
HAPPINESS IS A FAVORABLE BALANCE OF EMOTION
Psychologists who study happiness find most people can easily determine: (1) if they are happy or not, and (2) the degree of happiness they feel. But what, exactly, do people do when they judge their current happiness? How do they arrive at a conclusion regarding how happy they are? Fortunately we can be quite precise about this aspect of happiness since it has been extensively studied. Basically people figure out their happiness by simply balancing up the happy experiences they've been through compared to the unhappy experiences they've been through.
One thing obvious to philosophers since Aristotle, to modern psychological theorists, and to virtually everyone, is the fact that emotions are either positive or negative. Emotions can be easily categorized as either happy or unhappy, and in fact, people do this all the time. Thus, when you ask somebody how they are, they think of their recent emotional experiences, both the happy ones and the unhappy ones. If a person's good experiences outbalance his bad ones, he'll consider himself happy; if the bad ones outweigh the good ones he'll consider himself unhappy (21, 147, 201, 202).
We call this the "balance theory" of happiness (21, 147, 201), and it means that the balance between positive and negative experiences is the thing that counts. For example, one can have a lot of negative feelings in his life, but if his positive feelings outbalance those negative ones, he'll still consider himself a happy person (21, 147, 201, 202). It also means that the type of person who experiences little emotion from day to day can be just about as happy as the type of person who experiences a great deal of emotion from day to day, just as long as the positive outbalances the negative (21, 147, 201).
Having a "positive balance of emotion", however, is just the start. Actually the MORE your happy feelings outbalance your unhappy feelings the happier you are (21, 147, 201, 202, 255, 300). The more the merrier, in other words! The more happy experiences you have, the more happy moods you have, the more time you spend feeling happy, the the happier you tend to be. Thus, though the balance of positive to negative emotions is important, the absolute amount of happy feelings one experiences is even more important (147, 201, 202, 255, 300, 323), especially, it seems over long periods of time (241).
Ultimately, then, time becomes the most critical factor (235). No matter how mood or stable one's emotional life is; no matter how intense or mild; in the final analysis, it is the actual amount of time spent in happier moods that counts. The more time spent in happy moods the happier the person is . Obviously, the more time you spend feeling happy the less time you you have potentially available in which to feel unhappy.
Research on the "balance theory" has come up with an exciting new way to look at happiness by breaking it down into its two basic components: positive and negative feelings. Work in this area has uncovered a number of interesting things regarding how these two components interact to bring about happiness (21, 147, 241, 261, 262, 323, 396).
The most intriguing thing is that these two components appear to be somewhat independent of each other (7, 21, 147, 201, 235, 241, 261, 262, 300, 323, 399). Events that affect positive feelings don't necessarily affect negative feelings, and events that affect negative feelings don't necessarily affect positive feelings. For example, the reduction or elimination of negative feelings does not necessarily increase positive ones; nor does an increase in positive feelings necessarily lead to a reduction of negative ones. Thus, in many cases these two areas of feelings remain unaffected by each other.
This independence is largely because the causes of positive feelings are often different than the causes of negative feelings. Some factors affect only negative feelings, raising them or lowering them. Other factors affect only positive feelings, raising or lowering them. And some factors affect both positive and negative feelings!
As we go through life, every experience we undergo tends to affect our happiness, but the "balance theory" shows us that some experiences affect our happiness by working on our positive feelings while others affect it by working on our negative feelings. Interestingly, the relative influence of positive and negative feelings is about equal -- both have an approximately equal (50/50) effect on happiness (21, 147, 201, 202).
Research has also tentatively identified which things affect positive feelings, which things affect negative feelings, and which affect both (21, 147, 300, 396, 397, 399). Things like worrying, interpersonal tensions, anxiety, and physical ailments seem to affect only negative feelings. When these things are absent, negative feelings decrease -- but there is no related increase in positive feelings. Other factors affect only positive feelings: social activity, extroversion, and novel experience are examples. A rise in social activity, for instance, increases positive feelings, but it has no effect on reducing negative ones.
In the important areas of life, however, both areas of feelings are affected, though not necessarily to the same degree. Take marriage, for example. Marital companionship affects positive feelings, while marital tensions affect negative feelings, according to the research; and amazing as it may seem, marital tensions have a greater negative affect on a person's happiness than good companionship has a positive effect.
Occupation and income also affect both areas of feelings. Unemployment is a classic example. The immediate effect of being laid-off is a great reduction of positive feelings, while negative feelings appear unaffected. But as time goes by, negative feelings show a steady rise, as positive feelings stabilize.
For those who are employed, things like "satisfaction with the job" and "adequacy in the job" tend to reduce negative feelings much more than they increase positive feelings. This is generally true of all workers, but when we turn to positive feelings on the job and compare people in high status jobs with low status ones we find some interesting distinctions. For low status workers, income is the only thing that affects positive feelings generated on the job. For high status workers, on the other hand, income is much less important to positive feelings than things like job status and opportunity for advancement. It appears as if only those in high status jobs get much positive satisfaction from their jobs, lower status workers receive little to feel positive about except their income. The best workers at the bottom can do is avoid negative feelings, while workers at the top have many things about their jobs that can raise positive feelings.
These outside factors aren't the only things that show such relationships. Personal values, various qualities of mental health, and various qualities of self-actualization also differ: some tend to affect only positive feelings, others affect only negative feelings, and others affect both (201, 202).
The research also indicates an important general conclusion. When we look at all factors combined, it appears that negative feelings relate much more to a person's private, personal life, while positive feelings relate more to those things the greater society can provide (147). Personal things, like one's own worries and anxieties, one's marriage, one;s feelings of personal adequacy on the job, and one;s social tensions affect mostly negative feelings. But things that are more dependent on the outside society, like income, employment, job status, job advancement, and social participation, relate more to positive feelings. If this is true, it means that people are more dependent on their society for the positive things in life, while only the negative things in life are within a person's own sphere of influence. Again, the research ? findings in happiness place a strong responsibility on society-at-large for the happiness of it members.
The "balance theory," then, leaves you with two possible strategies for happiness. Either you can work to eliminate the sources of negative feelings in your life or you can work to increase the sources of positive feelings (or, of course, you can use some combination of both). It's just like in psychotherapy: some therapists work mainly to eliminate the negative aspects of personality, others work primarily to develop the healthy, positive aspects of the personality. In either case the net effect is the same.
THE STABILITY OF HAPPINESS
One of the more remarkable qualities of happiness is is stableness over time. In fact, personal happiness has be found to be among the more stable personality characteristics that psychologists have ever studied.
On a personal level, this may be hard to imagine! Certainly our own happiness varies over time, not only day to day, but year to year. For most of us, certain periods of life obviously stick out in our mind as being much happier than others. Even when we consider more recent periods of time, some times seem much more happy than others. So how can happiness be so stable over time?
The answer, it appears, is that happiness tends to fluctuate around a relatively stable "base-point" for most of us...
Given a scale of happiness from 0 to 10, for example, a person who is generally a 7 may vary from the top to the bottom of the scale over time, but as the days, months, and years go by, happiness tends to return to it's initial "base-point" average of 7. The same appears true for a person whose "base-point" is 5, and so on. At least that's what the research shows...
According to the data, despite daily or even yearly ups and downs, most people's happiness changes little over time. Both in short-term studies (lasting a few months) (202, 230, 224, 404), or in longitudinal investigations (studies which follow the same individuals over many years) (327, 395), the data shows that most people remain pretty much the same in their happiness-level (286).
Not only do most individual's happiness level remain fairly stable over time -- so do the happiness-traits which create it! Happiness-traits (like extroversion, optimism, a lack of worry, etc.) appear to be life-time traits. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that such traits can accurately predict a person's happiness ten years later (396, 397).
Apparently, for most of us, our happiness-level is, pretty much, a life-long condition. It's not that our happiness can't change. It simply suggests that for most of us, it doesn't. To paraphrase Netherlands researcher, Ruut Veenhoven:
Happiness in not a fleeting matter. It is not a short-lived or variable thing. If no major life-changes occur, it remains essentially stable. (286, p.60).
The stability of happiness-levels is not just an individual matter. Researchers have found that happiness appears to be remarkably stable on a national level, as well.
Internationally, little has changed over the last fifty years regarding the relative happiness-status of nations in international surveys (286, 322). Most nations' happiness-levels have remained fairly constant since World War II (286, 326). Even in United States polls, relative happiness has remained approximately the same for the last 45 years (230, 235, 286, 326, 336, 342).
This is not to say that subtle changes don't occur. Researcher Angus Campbell, one of the leading survey-researchers in America, has seen that happiness rates in the United States have risen somewhat over the years (up until the late 80's) and that the happiest age-groups have drifted upwards from young-adults to middle-aged adults over the last decades (317). Scores of national surveys also show that national happiness vacillates, somewhat, as economic indicators rise an fall. Yet overall, national happiness-levels remain fairly stable over time, despite occasional drifts from the norm.
Likewise, the causes of happiness, for most people around the world, also seem stable over the years (286, 336). In other words, the same factors which contributed to the happiness for people decades ago, are the same as they are today. Of course, as above, this doesn't mean that there aren't any changes. In Western Nations, for example, issues of income, education, and social status have lost their happiness-impact over the last several decades, while intimate relationshionships have increased in importance (286). Other studies also show that the relative impact of happiness-factors like income, social-status, and family change slightly over time for national groups (322), but, again, the overall trend is more stable than it is varying (336).
On both a national and an individual level, then, happiness shows itself to be a remarkably stable and durable human phenomenon. On a national level, happiness and its major causes will vary from year to year. The same is true on the personal level. But overall, happiness is rather enduring. It tends to be rather resilient to temporary conditions. It can take minor setbacks in stride. Indeed, both nationally, as well as personally, only the most cataclysmic of events can change it for years on end.
THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG REVISITED
Several chapters ago, when we examined the nature of happy moods, we ended with a section which discussed "the causes and effects" of such moods. There, we indicated that happiness is both a cause AND an effect! In that chapter we asked (among many things):
"Are people more sociable because they're in a happy mood? Or are they in a happy mood because they're socializing?"
In that chapter, we were dealing with short-lived moods of happiness; but now, several chapters later, we need to consider the same questions when it comes to overall happiness.
We've seen a wealth of positive things associated with happiness in the research. But are these things the CAUSES of happiness, or are they the RESULT of being happy?
Consider the following...
Clearly happy people socialize more. But are they happy because they socialize? Or do they socialize more because they're happy?
Happy people are quite optimistic. But are they happy with their lives because they're optimistic? Or have they become optimistic because they're so happy with their lives?
Happy people are quite successful. But are they happy simply because they've been successful? Or do they think they're successful simply because they're already happy?
More to the point, are people happy because they like what they have? Or, are do they like what they have only because they're happy to begin with?
Such questions are among the more recent, and most heated debates among happiness researchers (241, 341, 390), and the experimental results appear mixed.
So far, all the evidence presented in this book would seem to substantially confirm the hypothesis that people are happy because of "what they have," and because they have the kinds of "happiness-traits" we've been presenting. However, more recent and sophisticated analyses suggest that many of these "happiness-factors" do not cause happiness, but, rather, are the result of being happy in the first place.
Take the following research examples:
Studies show that the happier people become, the more optimistically they tend to see their jobs, their attainments, and the events which happen to them (415). Other studies indicate that the happier one becomes, the less one sees a perceived gap between current and desired achievement (415, 416). Likewise, evidence indicates that happy people feel they are in greater control of their lives; that life-events are going favorably; and that their marriage, job, living-standard, health, and social life is going well is merely because they are happier to begin with (415, 406).
Such evidence has led a number of happiness researchers to conclude that human happiness is largely a basic individual "trait" which has little to do with outside circumstances (286, 321). In their minds, the data suggests that happiness is a "trait" (one that is either inborn or is developed very early in life) that remains permanent throughout a lifetime.
These "trait theorists" have a good deal of evidence on their side...
First, there is the evidence we presented in the section above which shows that happiness is stable for most individuals over time. In general it seems, that "once a happy person, always a happy person." Why would happiness be so enduring over time for any individual if it weren't a basic "trait"?
Second, there is the evidence from studies of the demographic factors we have reviewed in this book. Although we have indicated that demographic factors (like income, occupation, marital-status, family-size, social prestige, education, and so on) all contribute; no one factor accounts for much, by itself. Studies vary, but individually no single factor ever seems to account for more than 25% of happiness differences between happy and unhappy people, at best. For example, only 10% of a persons happiness was seen to be due to "social status" in one survey of international studies (286) and only 20% due to "job satisfaction" in another (389).
When several different factors are combined, the predictive value only rises slightly. Depending on the factors which are combined, predictive estimates of happiness range from as little as 15% to as much as 60%, depending on the study (130, 216, 241, 259, 286, 305, 327, 344). On average, it would seem the best current guess would roughly place the figure around 30%. In other words, when we combine all the outside factors which contribute to happiness (income, wealth, social-status, nationality, social-ties, occupation, education, health, etc.), they probably explain, even at best, only half of a typical individual's happiness.
No matter how you add it up, it appears that much of a person's happiness cannot be directly accounted for by outside factors. Indeed, some studies suggest that hardly any happiness differences can be explained by such factors.
So the "trait theorists" ask: "Given that outside circumstances account for so little, isn't happiness merely a personality factor, completely unrelated to conditions of wealth, success, and life's situations?"
And if this trait theory is right, are all of us doomed to remain no more, or less, happy than we are today? Are we stuck with our present happiness no matter how our circumstances might change?
The answer is both "Yes" and "No"...
On the "Yes" side, the evidence can be viewed as indicating that personal happiness is fixed from the start. Not only is this indicated in the happiness data on normal individuals, but is it strongly amplified by the medical research into mental disorder and psychological research into personality development.
There is no doubt, based on medical findings, that emotional aptitude -- whether it be anger, anxiety, depression, or happiness -- can be significantly influenced by genetic or biochemical factors. Indeed, the major thrust of current psychiatric care is medicinal -- an attempt to bring balance to inherent pharmacological imbalances.
There is no doubt either, based on psychological research, that emotional aptitude -- whether it be anger, anxiety, depression, or happiness -- can be significantly determined by environmental factors in early childhood. Likewise, the major thrust of much psychological treatment focuses on the early years -- an attempt to bring inherent psychological imbalances into balance.
From this particular collection of evidence it might appear that the "Yes" side of the argument is right: our happiness in life is indeed fixed from the start.
On the "No" side, however, much research indicates that changes in one's life-circumstances definitely affect ones' happiness.
Clearly the evidence presented in earlier Chapters supports the "No" position. Past research has identified dozens and dozens of items which statistically show differences between happy and unhappy people, and there are numerous studies -- in my opinion, among the best -- which suggest that positive circumstances are more important than internal factors in predicting happiness (398, 399, 400, 406, 415).
So what is the real answer?
It is both "yes" and "no."
In effect, both sides are right, for both internal and external factors combine to create the happiness each of us experience.
Yet how can we balance these factors?
How much of our basic happiness can we attribute to inborn, genetic fixes? How much of it can we attribute to the basic personality traits fixed in early childhood? And how much can we attribute to the success and failures we experience along the way?
My own estimate, based on the collected research, is about 50/50. This is about the same figure cited by other respected researchers in the field (259, 344). In other words, about 50% of happiness is what happens to you, and 50% is what you bring to it!
We make this estimate for "normal" individuals, for we cannot discard a small percentage in any population who, due to brain damage or other abnormal physiological conditions are, biochemically speaking, relegated to a more internally determined happiness-level. For such people, the 50/50 rule does not apply, as internal conditions far outweigh outside circumstance for them. And even for the more "normal" population, this 50/50 estimate is merely a general guideline, as there is probably a good deal of variation around this estimate.
Can we break this 50/50 figure down even further? I believe we can for "normal" groups -- in part, by reexamining the data we've already reported in this Volume.
If we look at the 50% of happiness accounted for by outside circumstance, the lessons are already clear. Earlier we reviewed the primary factors in this category (wealth, success, status, socializing, marriage, family, health, education, etc.) -- and there we found that certain of these factors (like a rewarding love-relationship and close social ties) have a much greater impact on happiness than others. There is no need here, to go over each of these factors, and their relative potency, again.
But what of the 50% of the formula which appears attributable to internal factors? How can we divide this percentage?
It is a question as old as psychology itself. How much of one's personality, or "basic temperament," is due to genetics and how much is due to learning? It is the old "nature vs. nurture" question, revisited in the more specific area of human happiness.
It is a question which may never be finally answered, since these two major influences on personality are not independent! Instead, they interact...
According to modern genetic research, some degree of personality may well be inborn. Yet at the same time, medical research into the human brain shows the strong influence of environmental factors in radically reshaping the brain's inherited design.
Dramatic evidence from brain damaged patients shows that the human brain is capable or reconstructing itself during to reaccumulate lost abilities. Yet, on the other hand, an enormous number of clinical cases testify that people, despite their hardest efforts, are never able to change their most deep-seated personality patterns.
Still, the line needs to be drawn somewhere...
Based on all the medical and psychological research I have evaluated, I believe that inborn, genetic factors account for only a small percent of a person's "basic temperament" (say about 15% of the total we've been hypothesizing) while the lions share (35% of the total figure) is due to childhood influences.
For the average person then, we can roughly predict the major influences on happiness in the following formula...
Around 15% of one's happiness may be genetically determined (although this can be greatly modified by early environmental factors). Another 35% of one's happiness may be shaped in the early years by environmental learning (although this can somewhat mollified by inborn pre- dispositions). And the final 50% of your happiness is determined by the circumstances you find yourself in.
In sum, how happy you are appears to be based to a very small degree on inborn, genetic factors; to a larger degree various traits develop early in life; and for the most part, on the particular circumstances you find yourself in as you go through life.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF HAPPINESS
How universal is happiness around the world?
According to the research, happiness is most universal indeed...
Happiness appears to be a concept which is universally understood and valued around the world, from the most advanced societies to the most primitive. According to the prominent, international researcher, Ruut Veenhoven, differences in language and culture don't seem to interfere with it's universal prominence as the ultimate ideal (326).
The research finds that happiness is universally appreciated as the ultimate human goal -- and it's causes seem to be the same around the world. Across cultures, the specific factors which contribute to happiness appear universal across all studied cultures (202, 274, 307, 316, 326). Furthermore, the factors which contribute to happiness are generally the same for all age groups, no matter where in the world they live (286, 292, 321). In fact, it has been shown that the basic factors which contribute to happiness are the same for normal, handicapped (both born or acquired), and retarded individuals (293, 313). Moreover, around the world, both the happy and unhappy actually agree on what they consider to be the important factors for happiness (50, 130).
The nature of happiness -- and the things which contribute to it -- appears universal to all humans. As Veenhoven surmised,
"There is no doubt that all humans share some basic needs, which make themselves felt In all situations and cannot be completely overruled by acquired preferences and convictions. As happiness is likely to depend to some degree on the gratification of such universal needs it is also likely that there are universal conditions of happiness." (286, p. 43).
Or as I put it in an earlier writing:
"The findings on happy people have proven to be so consistent that the nature of happiness is far more stable, understandable, and basically universal than most have ever suspected" (229, pg.8)
FOLK WISDOM ABOUT HAPPINESS
If the understanding of happiness is, indeed, a universal constant, what do the world's people think about happiness? Here, the research speaks quite directly...
In past chapters we have itemized the many proven factors psychologists have actually found to be the contributing causes of happiness. There, we were concerned, primarily, with what happy people actually have. Yet, there is another approach that has been part of the happiness research effort, and that has been concerned with what ordinary people "believe" to be true about happiness -- or what might be called "common-sense" about happiness. This latter data comes from large-scale opinion surveys taken in the United States, Western Europe, and internationally, around the world. And, in general, these "common-sense" beliefs about happiness are remarkably consistent -- people around the world are in similar agreement about what they think about happiness!
So what do the people think happiness is?
In general, they define it rather accurately, as a pleasant mental state connoting contentment, adjustment, and freedom from worry (88, 130).
And what do they think are the specific causes of happiness?
Well, the answers vary widely. But, in general, the peoples of the world are on target...
Marriage, children, and family situations are mentioned as very important in most surveys (10, 27, 50, 55, 75, 76, 88, 113, 127). Sufficient money is also strongly emphasized, especially in the areas of the world that are economically depressed (27, 55, 64, 74, 76, 130, 305). Indeed, "A decent standard of living" is the number one factor mentioned in most world-wide surveys (27).
When it comes to economics, however, the world-wide emphasis is more on security and adequate income, not wealth (27, 49, 55, 57, 64, 88, 130). People generally reject the idea that "money brings happiness" (155), but the basics (like ownership of one's own home, farm, or business) are considered important world-wide (27). Actually, it is typical for people in wealthier nations to emphasize "contentment definitions" of happiness, while those in poorer countries emphasize "income definitions" of happiness (50, 130, 286).
Continuing with the things people around the world consider important to happiness is "good health." Overall, this factor appears to be the most universally mentioned factor of all (27, 50, 55, 64, 75, 76, 87, 130, 216, 259, 305), particularly among the elderly and among peoples in the world's underdeveloped nations.
Employment and satisfying work, is another factor most people name as an important ingredient for happiness (27, 50, 64, 75, 76, 130, 152). Success and achievement are also seen as important, but not quite as much as employment and basic job-satisfaction are viewed (27, 57, 130, 133).
A person's "social life" is also commonly mentioned (10, 27, 50, 55, 57, 64, 76, 88, 113, 127, 130). Friendships, love and affection, popularity, being valued by others, understanding and helping people, and acceptance of others are frequently cited as important to happiness. People vary, however, in how strongly they believe a social life contributes to happiness. In many cultures it is at the top of the list, in a few, it receives only a minor emphasis.
To a lesser extent, "freedom from worry," "religion," "optimism," and "hope" are also cited as important to happiness (27, 49, 64, 76, 88, 113, 130). "Education," though hardly mentioned by persons in industrialized nations, appears to be critically important to people in underdeveloped countries (27, 113, 130).
"Self-development," "self-actualization," "achieving a sense of personal worth," "the seeking of beauty," "self-expression," and "leading a good and decent life" are things mentioned only by a minority of respondents; while such things as "freedom," having "fun and pleasure," "leadership," "politics," "equality," "physical exercise," "leisure time activities," and "humor" are seen as merely peripheral contributors in the "common sense" view of happiness (27, 49, 50, 88, 130, 286).
The agreement between folk-wisdom and the research findings, on the surface, would appear most remarkable. It seems that people around the world not only know the basic things that contribute to happiness, they also seem to emphasize those things in an order that closely approximates what the research has found is actually the case.
One might conclude, therefore, that "common sense" about happiness is fairly accurate. But there are two problems.
Firstly, this "common sense" view is a collective view, comprised of the summary opinions of many thousands of polled individuals. As these individual opinions are summed together, certain ideas will, inevitably, be mentioned more often than others. Thus, in a polling sense, mass opinion seems to correspond quite nicely with the actual research findings, but this does not mean that most individuals have an accurate understanding of all of these factors, nor do they have an accurate understanding of the actual ranking of these factors. Most individuals see only a part of the overall picture -- very few appear to see it all.
Secondly, the research indicates that the majority of people greatly overestimate and mis-guess the importance and potency of the "happiness factors" they identify. Generally, people seem to place far greater value on things like income, health, social factors, status, occupation, etc., that the research actually supports (even when it involves their own happiness-situation) (305).
Nevertheless, on a collective level, people seem fairly accurate when it come to their naive understanding of happiness and its causes.
HOW MUCH HAPPINESS IS THERE?
Finally, we come to the end of this volume by asking the most important question of all, at least in a socio-political sense: how much happiness is there, anyway?
As we've seen, happiness appears to be fairly stable across individuals and nations. The basic concept of happiness is both universally understood and prized around the globe. Most people have a pretty good idea as to what creates happiness. And we've studied all the specific objective and personality factors associated with happiness.
So now, the only remaining question is: "How happy are most people?"
In all industrialized, Western nations, polls show that most people are happy. Take America for example...
The consistent result of nearly a thousand studies on happiness and related topics in the United States -- not one report shows more unhappy than happy people, even in economically depressed areas of the country. Apparently the American national "pursuit of happiness" has been a great success -- but only to a point. As we shall examine below, although most Americans are happy -- indeed, happier than most peoples of the world -- the level of happiness we have achieved is not as high as one might expect.
At first glance, American statistics look pretty good. Dozens of cross-sectional, national opinion polls have been conducted over the years, and practically 80% to 90% of Americans claim to be happy. The majority of these polls asked respondents "Are you very happy, fairly happy, or not too happy?" The breakdown of responses generally shows that from 20% to 35% of Americans consider themselves "very happy;" from 50% to 60% "fairly happy;" and from 10% to 25% "not too happy" -- depending on the study involved. Amazingly, these statistics remain remarkably similar over the years. For the past four decades, national happiness-levels have remained about the same. Certainly fluctuations occur, generally in tandem with the economy, but such fluctuations are fairly minor, overall (286, 317) (as we spoke of in our discussion of "stability" above).
Similar findings come from the hundreds of more direct studies on happiness. These studies, cited throughout these Volumes, have sampled many segments of the population using dozens of different measurements of happiness, and not one has failed to find more happy than unhappy people. As an example, in my own research, I have tested several thousands of normal adults using an 11-point happiness scale (one of the most widely used measures in the field) (235). With zero being extremely unhappy, 10 being extremely happy, and 5 being the neutral point; most people score between 5 and 9 (a score of 7 being average). Almost 80%, in other words, score in the happy range of the scale (the same figure found in national opinion polling).
Another indication of national happiness is the amount of time people spend in happy moods, and according to the studies, Americans generally experience more happy moods and feelings than unhappy ones (21, 67, 132, 147, 201, 202). My own data reveals that the average person spends close to 53% of their day in happy moods, a little less than 18% in unhappy moods, and another 29% in "neutral" states (201, 202, 222, 235). (Most people vary within 15 to 20 percentage points above or below these averages.)
That most Americans are happy should be no real surprise however. Americans expect to be happy! According to one national opinion study, Americans feel happiness is their basic human nature (130). And no wonder! When we look at the basic ingredients of happiness, (marriage, income, etc.) we find Americans have them all. Most Americans are married (around 85% at any given time), most have incomes higher than the levels necessary for happiness, most have their basic material and health needs met, and most are characteristically optimistic in their approach to life (130). Naturally, therefore, we would expect that most Americans would be happy. Indeed, as one researcher has concluded: in American society there are more positive experiences than negative experiences available (147). Thus in such a society, you can't go wrong!
Biologically too, it would seem natural to find most people happy. Since the seeking of happiness (through the avoidance of negative conditions and the seeking of positive ones) is the most fundamental biological imperative -- a successful species should naturally end up happy.
Even micro-electrical stimulation of various parts of the brain show that happiness should be the rule. Surgical exploration so far reveals that around 35% of the brain, when stimulated, give rise to happy feelings, while only about 7% induce unhappy or angry feelings (a ratio of around 5 to 1 in favor of the positive). Physiologically speaking, it appears as if our brain is designed with a much greater potential for pleasure than pain.
Then is happiness then the natural state of Man?
Sadly, the answer is no.
Western nations appear to be the exceptions, not the rule -- and even there, happiness rates are not exceptionally high. On average only about 3 in 4 individuals are in the happy column (leaving 1 in 4 in the unhappy column) (286, 327, 305). This is not a very impressive happiness rate, to my way of thinking.
Worldwide data is even more discouraging, where it appears that only half the world's people are basically happy (the other half, unhappy) (17).
Economic conditions appear to be the primary determinant. When we arrange the world's peoples, country by country, from the happiest and most satisfied to the unhappiest and most dissatisfied, we find the order is almost identical to their national ranking according to economic and material wealth (27, 286, 316). Wealth is the great divider of happy and unhappy populations, but it is not the only factor. To a lesser extent, happiness-rankings are also somewhat tied to factors of "freedom," "social equality," and access to education (326). (And interestingly, some factors which one might suspect ought to be associated with national happiness [like a nation's suicide-rate] show no relationship with international happiness ratings at all (286, 316, 326)).
That half the world's people are basically unhappy is a very sad finding, indeed. It is obvious that the task for those concerned with a truly happy world is providing enough to satisfy the basic needs of life for all peoples. The poorer nations have relatively unhappy populations; the richer nations of the industrialized West have relatively happy populations (17, 27, 308, 316, 326) despite the fact that studies show that the same factors, everywhere, contribute to happiness (17, 27, 274, 307, 308).
The world view changes, seemingly every year. But global economics remains the essential discriminator between happy and unhappy areas of the world. Despite the enormous changes which have occurred in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Republics, and elsewhere in the world, happiness still appears to be as Ruut Veenhoven (an international happiness researcher) found it a decade ago:
There are currently great differences in average happiness in various parts of the world. People in Asia and Africa are typically the least happy, while inhabitants of western nations tend to be most satisfied with life. (286)
And guess who's at the very top of the list? It's the United States of America. In virtually every international survey, Americans are the happiest people on earth.
Most Americans are happy, and Americans are the happiest nation in the world. The data looks pretty impressive! Until we look at it more closely...
When we do, we find that the real level of happiness in America is not as great as the data seems to imply. Sure, most Americans are happy -- but how happy is this? According to the researchers, when people claim to be "fairly happy," for example, closer examination reveals that what they really mean is that they are not consciously unhappy (130). Likewise, other studies, using more precise verbal designations, find the average level of happiness could best be described as "feeling fairly good," or "feeling O.K.," or "mildly happy" (132, 201, 202). And though most Americans spend a bit more than half the time in happy moods, their other time is spent in relativley negative states of mind (HM).
In other words, though most Americans are not unhappy people, their happiness is just a bit above the neutral zone. It seems that the average American defines their happiness as being non-depressed. A level of mood that is nothing close to the image of happiness we have outlined in this book.
In my mind, being a happy person is much more than simply not being unhappy or just a bit above neutral. And if we look at it this sense, the number of truly happy people is reduced quite a bit. What the true figure would be varies from study to study. But it appears to be from as high as 30% to as low as 10%. And if we look at those individuals who appear to be extremely happy in life we find the figure to be less than 5%. Being "happy," therefore, covers a lot of territory. It ranges from simply being non-depressed to being thrilled with life.
Thus we find that in the happiest nation on earth, the average level of happiness is rather mediocre. Certainly this is better than the unhappiness, misery, and despair many in the world must suffer. But it is far from the level of happiness one would expect in the most affluent and technologically advanced society in the world. And farther still from the level of happiness we would ideally wish for every man or woman, wherever in the world they might live.
What this all comes down to is, perhaps, the single most important lesson of this first volume on Human Happiness: most individuals, and most societies, have a far greater potential for happiness than they ever achieve.
IS IT BAD TO BE HAPPY?
Over the centuries, some philosophers, religious leaders, and social critics has strongly suggested that happiness is a personal and social evil, rather than the ultimate good. It is a puritan and ascetic view which still holds strong currency among many people even today. As Ruut Venhoven, an international researcher, put it:
"Traditionally, anti-hedonists have argued that the enjoyment of life has aversive consequences and thereby destroys itself in the long run. Happiness is said to lead to "apathetic easy going" and "irresponsible optimism," thus ringing in economical and political decline. Happiness is also expected to give way to "individualism" and egotism," which weaken moral consciousness and disrupt social bonds." (329, p. 23)
The picture painted by happiness critics is not a pretty one. It sees happiness as an evil. It conjures images of selfish individualism, the "contented pig," and the specter of a soft, overindulgent society, which lies in a nonproductive morass, opiated by joy and pleasure.
Yet how true, in fact, is this picture? Do the research findings justify such fears?
Or to be blunt about it: is it bad to be happy?
Let's first look at these questions from a personal point of view. Later, we'll examine them from a broader, social perspective.
On a personal level, there seems hardly anything bad or detrimental about being happy. Clearly, the research findings we've presented in this volume show that "Happy people have it made!" And, frankly, we've not seen anything which would suggest an opposite conclusion. From what we've found, happiness is associated with virtually everything that is good in life. It seems to contribute to closer family ties, better marital relationships, the development of happier children, the cohesiveness of social groups, better work environments, etc.. It appears to produce higher productivity and success in the workplace. It tends to be conducive to good physical health and even contributes to longevity. It tends to promote good mental health. And fosters personal growth and self-actualization.
Indeed, in page after page of this volume, we haven't seen anything which suggests that being happiness is harmful for the individual. But the picture may not be completely perfect...
Over my years of combing through the happiness data, I have found a few bits of evidence which would indicate that being happy might have a couple of detrimental consequences for a person.
One concerns some evidence which suggests that people in extremely happy moods may be a bit more "accident prone" than they might be at other times (Ross ) (of course, the same "accident proneness" is also true of people in depressed moods); the other appears to be some anecdotal evidence regarding the resentment and jealousy some, less happy, people sometimes hold for those who are happy.
Years ago a tabloid headline caught my eye: "Clerk Fired for Being Too Happy" (291). According to the story, this particular happy lady was simply too cheerful and bubbly for her boss's taste, and although over 180 of her fellow employees petitioned against it, she was dismissed.
In my interviews with happy people over the years, such incidents as this appear to be quite rare. Far more often than not, happy people are sought after -- not rejected. Still, most of the happy people I've studied have (on very rare occasions) experienced some negative reactions from others because of their happiness. Mostly, such reactions come from unhappier individuals who are either skeptical, envious, or bitter about another's happiness.
Thus, if there are any drawbacks at all for being happy, they would appear to be: a slight tendency to be a bit more "accident prone" in extremely happy moods; and the occasional possibility of negative reactions from other, less happy, people. Considering the many wonderful things one gains when they are happy, these would hardly seem to blemish the larger picture we've drawn.
But what about happiness in the larger social context?
The research evidence gives absolutely no support to the critics who fear that happiness is detrimental for society (286, 329). Rather than being self-indulgent, lazy, selfish "pigs," happy people are quite the opposite...
As we covered before, happy people tend to mirror the "social ideal!" To highlight just a few of the findings again: happy people are found to be more democratic, less dogmatic, and more open minded. They are highly pro-social, people-oriented individuals who are loving, caring, concerned, helpful, and giving. The tend to be more conventional, positively religious, and moral that others. They are typically seen as socially "model" or "ideal." They are more concerned with, social, moral and family values than making money (286, 329). They are honest and open individuals; and although they tend to have a rosy, optimistic view of life, they are not dishonest or deceptive, either with themselves, or others (415). Furthermore, happy people tend to be much more concerned and caring about social problems such as economic inequity, freedom, and world peace. And finally, happy people tend to contribute more to charitable causes and volunteer more of their time to their communities.
Clearly, happy people are not a detriment to society. In fact, just the opposite: happy people are what we would tend to describe as "model citizens."
Nor does happiness lead to a collapse of economic productivity. As we've seen before, happy people are anything but lazy; they are characterized by a high level of activity, involvement with life, productivity, competency, and success. Especially on the job! If Business has learned nothing about work-motivation in the last fifty years of research, at least it is coming to see that happy workers are productive workers (and ironically, although much of this research was done in the United States, it is the major economic powers in Japan and in Western Europe who've taken these lessons most to heart).
There has also been the "political" fear, expressed by some critics, that happy people are too content to concern themselves with malevolent or dictatorial drifts in their governance. Yet, there is no evidence for this fear either. Internationally, for example, the countries that are the most democratic and concerned with human rights, are the ones with the happiest populations. As researcher, Bert Klandermans, concludes:
"There is little reason to assume that happiness necessarily turns people into acquiescent citizens. On the contrary, happiness might reflect the basic sense of security people need to become actively involved in their society." (412, p.61)
Indeed, historically, it would appear that political strife, violent revolution, and oppressive regimes spring more from unhappier populations than happy ones.
Yet, what of society's ills? Crime? Domestic violence? Child abuse? Drugs? Alcoholism?
Here again, there is absolutely no evidence that happiness leads to such social problems. Indeed, the mass of evidence on criminal and abusive behavior shows that it is unhappy people who are the most likely to perpetrate anti-social and self-destructive acts. Happy people, according to the findings we've already reviewed, are far less hostile, criminal, violent, and self-abusive.
Finally there is the matter of health. If nothing else, the research shows that a happy society is a healthy society, both mentally and physically! Not only do happier people enjoy better health from year to year, they also tend to have longer and more healthy life spans. In addition, happier people are more mentally healthy and emotionally well-adjusted. They are far less likely to suffer from emotional disorders than average and unhappy people are. With the staggering rise associated with health care costs for most nations in recent years, this obvious benefit of a happy population is clear.
In sum, both on an individual or national level, there is nothing bad about being happy. In fact, the research picture demonstrates just the opposite: individual or national happiness is good!
You see, the problem the critics have always had is based on a misunderstanding many people have about the nature of happiness. True happiness has little to do with the selfish accumulation, pleasure-seeking, and non productive dalliance the critics have always feared. Rather, as we have seen, is based far more on social inclusion, close family and marital ties, contributing to one's community, being productive, and having meaningful work to do.
Moreover, there is an apparent misunderstanding regarding basic human nature involved in these fears about happiness. And that misunderstanding, lies more in a lack of understanding about unhappiness, rather than happiness. For some reason, most people simply don't understand how much human misery is caused by unhappiness. People read about the violent crime, the domestic discord, the inhuman treatment of others, and the multitude of social ills, every time they pick up a newspaper. But rarely are they told of the tragic human unhappiness which underlies these despicable behaviors and lies within the persons who commit them.
Not that such unhappiness should ever be a legal excuse for such human crimes, but it is the main reason from them!
In my opinion, the major finding of modern Psychology is simply that unhappiness is the basis of all social evils. Unhappy people commit unhappy acts; either on themselves or others.
It is not a matter of judgement, here. It is not that unhappy people are intrinsically "bad." It is just that they are frustrated, angry, lacking, and desperate.
Frustrated, angry, lacking, and desperate people often do criminal, violent, and degrading things to survive. As Abraham Maslow theorized in his view of human needs, a human being has to meet his or her most basic "survival and safety needs," first, to be able to concern his or herself with any of the more higher-order human needs (like "love," "esteem," or "self-actualization"). In other words, one has to attain a certain level of happiness in his or her own life before one becomes concerned with the happiness of others. As a general psychological rule, unhappy people are the "self-centered" ones. When one is embittered, empty, and needy, one cares little about the feelings of others in meeting their own needs. It is only when one is reasonable happy on their own, that compassion for others becomes important.
Concern and caring for others, it seems, is not just a moral issue; it is a happiness issue!
SOCIAL POLICY
Perhaps the most exciting development in happiness research in recent years has been how seriously governmental agencies around the world are beginning to study and utilize happiness measures of their populace. More and more, as happiness research has come into its own, enlightened governments are coming to see how valuable happiness-indices are in helping to formulate social policy decisions.
The idea, politically speaking, is nothing new. Centuries ago, the American Declaration of Independence specified that "the pursuit of happiness" was one of the most important and inalienable of human rights. Yet, until the last decade or two, there was no reliable way to assess such ideal, national sentiments.
Clearly, in this volume, we have seen that happiness (both on an individual and national level) can be accurately assessed. Furthermore, we have found from the data that happiness is among the best indicators that has yet been devised to determine the health and well-being of any individual or society. Moreover, as we have just seen, happiness appears to be the ultimate goal an enlightened society could provide for itself, both in individual and social terms.
What appears to be happening, internationally, is the beginnings of a new way to assess social policy and social progress. It is a glimmering of the possibility of attacking social concerns more in terms of happiness than in traditional terms of economics (147, 316, 327, 336, 343). It is possible that in the near future, happiness measures will slowly come to replace the standard measures of social progress, such as GNP or national productivity. Indeed, already this trend is emerging. For example, in his book, The Grand Failure, the internationally recognized geopolitical analyst, Zbigniew Brezinski, has utilized several happiness indicators to support his theories regarding the collapse of communism in Russia and the Eastern Bloc nations.
After all we have learned about human happiness in this volume, one can only imagine how much society might be improved if social policy was evaluated in terms of happiness values rather than on the economic values it has been in the past.
There is little doubt among happiness researchers that a national policy based on the achievement of happiness has, finally, become a scientific possibility (327). It is not only that we have come to a point in scientific polling that we can accurately assess happiness on a world-wide, cross-sectional basis -- a capacity which senior pollster, George Gallop sees as constituting "a turning point in human understanding" (316). It is that we finally know enough about the nature of happiness to make it more understandable and accessible to everyone, and, therefore, more amenable for enlightened governments to realistically set as a national priority.
CAN EVERYONE BE REALLY HAPPY?
In concluding the present volume, it is time to ask, perhaps, the most fundamental question of all regarding the nature of human happiness. Can every human being be really happy? Is it a possibility, or an unreachable, utopian dream?
The substantial bulk of data we have examined in this volume seems to hold mixed answers...
Much in this volume suggests that the answer is "No."
Clearly, human happiness is to some degree tied to economic, social, health, and success factors -- most of which are in limited supply on this planet. To the degree that happiness is based upon being rich, healthy, and successful -- and living a blessed life containing little setback, heartache, or misfortune -- the dream of universal happiness would look to be impossible. Likewise, if happiness is based on enduring personality traits or genetic predispositions, there wouldn't be great hope either. And even our biological heritage, with our innate capacities for pain, fear, anger, and depression, would seem to place natural barriers in our path.
On the other hand, much in this volume indicates that the answer could be "Yes." From the biological perspective, it appears that the achievement of happiness is our innate, human imperative. Although pain and unpleasant emotion are built into the system, it appears, essentially, as if we are designed to be happy (just as we are essentially designed to be healthy). Likewise we've seen hardly any socio-economic factor that absolutely determines happiness. Age and sex, as we've seen, are virtually no barrier at all to happiness; and though factors like love, success, income, and health important, none are critical. Personality characteristics too, make their contribution to happiness, but certainly personality can be changed and new traits can be developed.
The best argument, however, for the possibility of universal happiness lies in the fact that so many people around the world have already achieved it!
The world is filled with extremely happy people (although, statistically, they are in the minority). And though many of these happy people have most of the fine things we've covered in this book, many others have hardly any of them at all -- yet, they are just as happy!
My own conclusion takes both these views into account. Clearly, environment, biology -- and just plain luck -- will always place barriers in our path toward happiness, but overall, I see a promise -- if not for the dream of universal happiness -- for the very realistic possibility of greater happiness for almost anyone.
It is not that I'm a dreamer. It's my feeling that we've hardly even tried yet!
The statistics on American and world-wide happiness we covered earlier in this chapter demonstrate how mediocre most people's happiness-level is. Compared to the happiness-levels that the truly happiest individuals enjoy, it appears that most of us have hardly begun to tap our "happiness potential."
Why aren't more people happier?
Up until now, it's all been a matter of luck!
Over the centuries, and, certainly, even today, there have been millions of very happy persons. But why were they happy? Was it a matter of insight? Did they consciously set-out to be that way? Did they know something the rest of us didn't? Hardly! They were simply the lucky ones.
It is the phenomenon I refer to as "accidental happiness" (289). Although the research seems to show that happier people think a little be more about personal happiness and value it as a goal, in general, finding happiness appears to be more an accident of circumstance than anything else. Happy people have been the fortunate ones who have ended up with the success and personality we now know contribute to happiness. But they didn't know this, anymore than less happy people knew exactly what they lacked in life.
Happiness has never been a matter of tangible knowledge, until now, thus how could anyone know where to start to improve it?
I believe there have been three major barriers which have blocked Humankind's attempt for greater happiness over the centuries.
The first is: people have never known what happiness is!
When we began this volume, we noted that as much as most people recognize that happiness is "the most important thing in life," few have any accurate idea as to what it is. Clearly, this is a tragic human irony. If happiness deserves pursuit, one should know a bit more about what it is that one peruses. Without a specific definition, our attempts to isolate it in our lives is "accidental," at best.
The second barrier: people have never fully appreciated happiness.
Based on the massive interviews I've collected over the years, few people really appreciate happiness. As much as they say they want it, few, even those that are happy, really appreciate what it means to be happy. The unhappy know it would be better to be happy, but they have no real understanding of what it might feel like to be that way; and the happiest people seem to take their happiness for granted, never full realizing or savoring the happiness they have. But in a larger sense, it appears that hardly anyone truly appreciates how fundamentally important happiness is, or how precious and valued it should be. Because of this, we loose sight of our happiness in day to day life, and greatly reduce the happiness we might gain from it.
The third barrier: people have never really understood what contributes to happiness.
Naturally, this is the biggest barrier of all! If peoples, throughout history, had available a truly scientific knowledge regarding human happiness, there may well have been much greater happiness over the centuries. Indeed, the dream of universal happiness might already be a reality by now. But such scientific knowledge has only begun in our times.
Historically, of course, there has always been a great deal of common, "folk-wisdom" and philosophy regarding happiness to serve as a guide. But as we have seen, such views of happiness have only been partially accurate and often contradictory. The lack of commonly understood, scientific knowledge in the understanding of happiness is clearly one of the major reasons Humanity has made so little progress toward its attainment over recorded time. Despite the miraculous progress seen in other areas of science -- knowledge which has led form the eradication or polio to the the exploration of the moon -- our knowledge about human happiness has, until recently, remained as it was in the Stone Age.
If these are the major barriers which have stood in Humanity's way of happiness, then, certainly, the accumulated research on human happiness presented in this volume begins to tear them down.
Based on research, we have, for the first time, been able to, not only better define happiness, but we have also been able to appreciate human happiness as the ultimate goal of living. We've also examined what it's like to feel truly happy, and we have pinpointed the varied outside causes and isolated to numerous personality traits associated with happiness. We've learned that there are a number of basic personality characteristics and attitudinal sets which contribute to greatly to happiness.
Today, these age-old barriers have been dissolved. No longer can a lack of definition of happiness, or a mis-appreciation of its importance, or a non-understanding of its causes be an excuse for its lack of attainment.
There is the potential for a happier world!
Or, at the very least, the possibility for many more individuals to join the ranks of the truly happy people...
TO VOLUME II TO TABLE OF CONTENTS