Purpose in life

Purpose in life

Purpose in life refers broadly to the pursuit of life satisfaction. It has also been found that those with high purpose in life scores have strong goals and sense of direction. They feel there is meaning to their past and present life, and hold beliefs that continue to give their life purpose. Research in the past has focused on purpose in the face of adversity (what is awful, difficult, or absurd in life). Recently, research has shifted to include a focus on the role of purpose in personal fulfillment and self-actualization.

The self-control approach, as expounded by C. R. Snyder, focusses on exercising self-control to achieve self-esteem by fulfilling goals and feeling in control of our own success. This is further reinforced by a sense of intentionality in both efforts and outcomes.[229]

The intrinsic motivation approach of Viktor Frankl emphasized finding value in three main areas: creative, experiential, and attitudinal. Creative values are expressed in acts of creating or producing something. Experiential values are actualized through the senses, and may overlap the hedonistic view of happiness. Attitudinal values are prominent for individuals who are unable to pursue the preceding two classes of values. Attitudinal values are believed to be primarily responsible for allowing individuals to endure suffering with dignity.[229]

A personal sense of responsibility is required for the pursuit of the values that give life meaning, but it is the realization that one holds sole responsibility for rendering life meaningful that allows the values to be actualized and life to be given true purpose. Determining what is meaningful for one's self provides a sense of autonomy and control which promotes self-esteem.[229]

Purpose in life is positively correlated with education level and volunteerism. However, it has also been found to decrease with age. Purpose in life is both highly individual, and what specifically provides purpose will change over the course of one's lifetime.[230]

All three of the above theories have self-esteem at their core. Self-esteem is often viewed as the most significant measure of psychological well-being, and highly correlated with many life-regulating skills. Purpose in life promotes and is a source of self-esteem; it is not a by-product of self-esteem.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to a belief that one's ability to accomplish a task is a function of personal effort. Low self-efficacy, or a disconnect between ability and personal effort, is associated with depression; by comparison, high self-efficacy is associated with positive change, including overcoming abuse, overcoming eating disorders, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. High self-efficacy also has positive benefits for one's immune system, aids in stress management, and decreases pain.[210] A related concept, Personal effectiveness, is primarily concerned with planning and the implementation of methods of accomplishment.

Sports

According to Bloodworth and McNamee sports and physical activities are a key contributor to the development of people's well-being. The influence of sports on well-being is conceptualized within a framework which includes impermanence, its hedonistic shallowness and its epistemological inadequacy.[clarification needed] Researching the effect of sport on well-being is difficult as some societies are unable to access sports, a deficiency in studying this phenomenon.[231]

Suffering

Suffering can indicate behavior worthy of change, as well as ideas that require a person's careful attention and consideration.[233] Generally, psychology acknowledges suffering can not be completely eliminated, but it is possible to successfully manage and reduce suffering. The University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center explains: "Psychology's concern with remedying human problems is understandable and should certainly not be abandoned. Human suffering demands scientifically informed solutions. Suffering and well being, however, are both part of the human condition, and psychologists should be concerned with both."[232] Positive psychology, inspired by empirical evidence, focuses on productive approaches to pain and suffering, as well the importance of cultivating strengths and virtues to keep suffering to a minimum[232][234] (see also Character strengths and virtues (book)).

According to Peterson, the Buddhist saying that "life is suffering" can be understood as a reality that humans must accept, as well as a call to cultivate virtues.

In reference to the Buddhist saying "Life is suffering", researcher and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson suggested this view as realistic, not pessimistic, where acceptance of the reality life is harsh, provides a freedom from the expectation one should always be happy. This realization can assist in the management of inevitable suffering. To Peterson, virtues are important because they provide people with essential tools to escape suffering (e.g., the strength to admit dissonant truths to themselves). Peterson maintained suffering is made worse by false philosophy (i.e., denial that natural suffering is inevitable).[235]

Similarly, Seligman believes positive psychology is "not a luxury", saying "most of Positive Psychology is for all of us, troubled or untroubled, privileged or in privation, suffering or carefree. The pleasures of a good conversation, the strength of gratitude, the benefits of kindness or wisdom or spirituality or humility, the search for meaning and the antidote to "fidgeting until we die" are the birthrights of us all."[236]

Positive coping is defined as "a response aimed at diminishing the physical, emotional, and psychological burden that is linked to stressful life events and daily hassles"[237] It is found that proper coping strategies will reduce the burden of short-term stress and will help relieve long-term stress. Stress can be reduced by building resources that inhibit or buffer future challenges. For some people, these effective resources could be physiological, psychological or social.[237]

Terror management

Terror management theory maintains that people suffer cognitive dissonance (anxiety) when they are reminded of their inevitable death. Through terror management, individuals are motivated to seek consonant elements – symbols which make sense of mortality and death in satisfactory ways (i.e. boosting self-esteem).

Research has found that strong belief in religious or  secular meaning systems affords psychological security and hope. It is moderates (e.g. agnostics, slightly religious individuals) who likely suffer the most anxiety from their meaning systems. Religious meaning systems are especially adapted to manage anxiety about death or dying because they are unlikely to be disconfirmed (for various reasons), they are all encompassing, and they promise literal immortality.[238][239][self-published source?]

Whether emotional effects are beneficial or adverse seems to vary with the nature of the belief. Belief in a benevolent God is associated with lower incidence of general anxiety, social anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion whereas belief in a punitive God is associated with greater symptoms. (An alternative explanation is that people seek out beliefs that fit their psychological and emotional states.)[240]

Citizens of the world's poorest countries are the most likely to be religious, and researchers suggest this is because of religion's powerful coping abilities.[241][242] Luke Galen also supports terror management theory as a partial explanation of the above findings. Galen describes evidence (including his own research) that the benefits of religion are due to strong convictions and membership in a social group.[243][244][245][self-published source?]

Relational factors

Love and caring

The capacity for loving attachments and relationships, especially with parents, is the strongest predictor of well-being later in life.[246]

Marriage

Seligman writes: "Unlike money, which has at most a small effect, marriage is robustly related to happiness... In my opinion, the jury is still out on what causes the proven fact married people are happier than unmarried people." (pp. 55–56[103]). Married persons report higher levels of happiness and well-being than single people.[247] Other data has shown a spouse's happiness depends on the happiness of their partner. When asked, spouses reported similar happiness levels to each other. The data also shows the spouses' happiness level fluctuates similarly to one another. If the husband is having a bad week, the wife will similarly report she had a bad week.[248]

There is little data on alternatives like polyamory, although one study stated wife order in polygyny did not have a substantial effect on life or marital satisfaction over all.[249] This study also found younger wives were happier than older wives.

On the other hand, at least one large study in Germany found no difference in happiness between married and unmarried people.[250]

Studies have shown that married couples are consistently happier and more satisfied with their life than those who are single.[251] Some research findings have indicated that marriage is the only real significant bottom-up predictor of life satisfaction for men and women, and that those people who have a higher life satisfaction prior to marriage, tend to have a happier marriage.[252]

Self-reported satisfaction typically drops as the years of marriage roll on, particularly for couples who have children compared to those who do not.[253] The reasons for this decline include a drop in affectionate behaviour. One team of researcher from Northwestern University who summarised the literature in 2013, identifies that this trend does not reverse throughout the marital period.[254]

Surprisingly, there has been a steady decline in the positive relationship between marriage and well-being in the United States since the 1970s. This decline is due to women reporting being less happy than previously and single men reporting being happier than previously.[255] Research does exist, however, suggesting that compared to single people, married people have better physical and psychological health and tend to live longer.[256]

With this, a two-factor theory of love was developed by Barnes and Sternberg. This theory is composed of two components: passionate love and companionate love. Passionate love is considered to be an intense longing for a loved one. This love is often experienced through joy and sexual fulfillment, or even through rejection. On the other hand, companionate love is associated with affection, friendship and commitment. Stutzer and Frey (2006) found that the absence of loneliness and the emotional support that promotes self-esteem are both important aspects that contribute to individual well-being within marriage.[256] Both passionate and companionate love are the foundations for every variety of love that one may experience.[257] When passionate and companionate love are compromised in a marital relationship, satisfaction is decreased and the likelihood of divorce increases.[258] In other words, the lack of positive support and validation increases the risk for divorce.

Because of the expansive research done on the significance of social support within a marriage, it is important to understand that this research was inspired by a theory called the attachment theory perspective. Attachment theory stresses the importance of support and care giving in a relationship for the development of trust and security. Attachment theory, as conceptualized by Collins and Feeney (2000) is an interpersonal, transactional process that involves one partners caregiving responses.[259]

Parenthood

While the mantle of parenting is sometimes held as the necessary path of adulthood, study findings are actually mixed as to whether parents report higher levels of happiness relative to non-parents. Folk wisdom suggests a child brings partners closer; research has found couples actually become less satisfied after the birth of the first child.[260] The joys of having a child are overshadowed by the responsibilities of parenthood.[261] Based on quantitative self-reports, researchers found parents prefer doing almost anything else to looking after their children. By contrast, parents' self-report levels of happiness are higher than those of non-parents. This may be due to already happy people having more children than unhappy people. In addition, it might also be that, in the long-term, having children gives more meaning to life.[262][263] One study found having up to three children increased happiness among married couples, but not among other groups with children.[264] Proponents of Childfreedom maintain this is because one can enjoy a happy, productive life without the trouble of ever being a parent. In a research study by Pollmann-Schult (2014) on 13,093 Germans, it was found that when finances and time costs are held constant, parents are happier and show increased life satisfaction than non-parents.[265]

By contrast, many studies found having children makes parents less happy. Compared with non-parents, parents with children have lower levels of well-being and life satisfaction until children move out of the household, at which point parents have higher well-being and satisfaction.[266] In addition, parents report more feelings of depression[261] and anxiety[267] than non-parents. However, when adults without children are compared to empty nest parents, parenthood is positively associated with emotional well-being.[261] People found parenthood to be more stressful in the 1970s than they did in the 1950s. This is thought to be because of social changes in regards to employment and marital status.[267]

Males apparently become less happy after the birth of a child due to added economic pressure and taking on the role of being a parent.[260] A conflict between partners can arise when the couple does not desire traditional roles, or has an increasing number of roles.[260] Unequal responsibilities of child-rearing between men and women account for this difference in satisfaction. Fathers who worked and shared an equal part in child-raising responsibilities were found to be the least satisfied.[268] Research shows that single parents have higher levels of distress and report more mental health problems than married persons.[261]

Researchers implemented the Huta & Ryan Scale: Four Eudaimonic Measurement Questionnaire to analyze the participants eudaimonic motives, through motivation towards activities. The investigation was conducted on Canadian university undergraduates. The four eudaimonic pursuits as described by Huta & Ryan are:

1. "Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal"

2. "Seeking to use the best in yourself"

3. "Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something"

4. "Seeking to do what you believe in".[269]

The study determined that participants derived well-being from eudaimonic pursuits only if their parents had role modeled eudaimonia, but not if their parents had merely verbally endorsed eudaimonia.[269]

Studies were also conducted on responsiveness and demandingness. The studies participants were American university undergraduates. The terms are described as follows; responsiveness satisfies the basic psychological need for autonomy. This is relevant to eudaimonia because it supports and implements the values of initiative, effort, and persistence, and integration of one's behaviour's values, and true-self. Autonomy is an important psychological factor because it provides the individual with independence. Demandingness cultivates many of the qualities needed for eudaimonia, including structure, self-discipline, responsibility, and vision. Responsiveness and demandingness are reported to be good aspects of parenting. The studies report both of these qualities as important factors to well-being.[269]

The study addressed parenting style by assessing and using adaptions of Baumrind's Parent Behaviour Rating Interview. Adaptions of this interview were made into a seventy-five question based survey; participants answered questions organized into fifteen subscales. The study determined that eudaimonically oriented participants reported their parents had been both demanding and responsive towards them. A multiple regression showed that demandingness and responsiveness together explained as much as twenty-eight percent of the variance in eudaimonia, this suggests parenting played a major role in the development of this pursuit. This supported the expectation that eudaimonia is cultivated when parents encourage internal structure, self-discipline, responsibility, and vision, and simultaneously fulfill a child's needs for autonomy. The research concludes that parents who want their children to experience eudaimonia must firstly themselves "mentor" their children in the approaches to attain eudaimonia. To encourage eudaimonia verbally is not sufficient enough to suffice eudaimonia into adulthood. Parents must clearly role model eudaimonia for it to truly be present in the child's life.[71]

Social ties

In the article "Finding Happiness after Harvard", George Vaillant concluded a study on what aspects of life are important for "successful living". In the 1940s, Arlie Bock, while in charge of the Harvard Health Services, started a study, selecting 268 Harvard students from graduating classes of 1942, '43, and '44. He sought to identify the aspects of life contributing to "successful living". In 1967, the psychiatrist George Vaillant continued the study, undertaking follow-up interviews to gauge the lives of many of the students. In 2000, Vaillant again interviewed these students as to their progress in life. Vaillant observed: health, close relationships, and how participants dealt with their troubles. Vaillant found a key aspect to successful living is healthy and strong relationships.[270][271]

A widely publicized study from 2008 in the British Medical Journal reported happiness in social networks may spread from person to person.[272] Researchers followed nearly 5000 individuals for 20 years in the long-standing Framingham Heart Study and found clusters of happiness and unhappiness that spread up to 3 degrees of separation on average. Happiness tended to spread through close relationships like friends, siblings, spouses, and next-door neighbors; researchers reported happiness spread more consistently than unhappiness through the network. Moreover, the structure of the social network appeared to affect happiness, as people who were very central (with many friends, and friends of friends) were significantly happier than those on the network periphery. People closer with others are more likely to be happy themselves.[272] Overall, the results suggest happiness can spread through a population like a virus.[273][274] Having a best friend buffers one's negative life experiences. When one's best friend is present Cortisol levels are decreased and feelings of self-worth increase.[275]

Neuroeconomist Paul Zak studies morality, oxytocin, and trust, among other variables. Based on research findings, Zak recommends: people hug others more often to get into the habit of feeling trust. He explains "eight hugs a day, you'll be happier, and the world will be a better place".[276]

Recently, Anderson et al. found that sociometric status (the amount of respect one has from face-to-face peer group) is significantly and causally related to happiness as measured by subjective well-being.[277]

Institutional factors

Education

Education and intelligence

Research suggests neither a good education nor a high IQ reliably increases happiness.[49] Anders Ericsson argued an IQ above 120 has a decreasing influence on success. Presumably, IQs above 120 do not additionally cause other happiness indicators like success (with the exception of careers like Theoretical physics, where high IQs are more predictive of success). Above that IQ level, other factors, like social skills and a good mentor, matter more.[278] As these relate to happiness, intelligence and education may simply allow one to reach a middle-class level of need satisfaction (as mentioned above, being richer than this seems to hardly affect happiness).[279] According to the findings of the study, Using Theatrical Concepts for Role-plays with Educational Agents by Klesen, she expresses how role- playing embeds information and educational goals and causes people to learn unintentionally. Studies have shown that enjoyment in things as simple as role playing increases a person's IQ and their happiness.[280]

Martin Seligman has said: "As a professor, I don't like this, but the cerebral virtues—curiosity, love of learning—are less strongly tied to happiness than interpersonal virtues like kindness, gratitude and capacity for love."[49]

Educational goals

John White (2013) investigated the educational goals at public schools in Britain. School-education involves both cognitive and conceptual learning, but also the development social skills and personal development. Ideally, children develop self-confidence, and create purpose for themselves. According to White, in the past schools only focused on knowledge and education but now Britain has moved to a broader direction. White's Every Child Matters initiative seeks to enhance children's well-being across the range of children's services.[281]

Physical education

As a basic building block to a better existence, positive psychology aims to improve the quality of experiences. Within its framework, students could learn to become excited about physical activity. Playing comes natural to children; positive psychology seeks to preserve this zest (a sense of excitement and motivation for life)[282] for movement in growing and developing children. If offered in an interesting, challenging and pleasurable way physical activity would thus internalize an authentic feeling of happiness in students. Positive psychology's approach to physical activity could give students the means of acquiring an engaged, pleasant and meaningful life.[283]

School education

Positive psychology is beneficial to schools and students because it encourages individuals to strive to do their best, whereas scolding has the opposite effect. Clifton and Rath[284] discussed research conducted by Dr. Elizabeth Hurlock in 1925, where fourth, fifth and sixth graders were either praised, criticized or ignored, based on their work on math problems. Praised students improved by 71%, those criticized improved by 19%, and students provided with no feedback improved a mere 5%. Praise seems an effective method of fostering improvement.

According to Clifton and Rath[284] ninety nine out of one hundred people prefer the influence of positive people. The benefits include: increased productivity, and contagious positive emotions, which assists one in working to the best of their abilities. Even a single negative person can ruin the entire positive vibe in an environment. Clifton and Rath[284] cited ‘positive emotions as an essential daily requirement for survival’.

In 2008, in conjunction with the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, a whole-of-school implementation of Positive Psychology was undertaken by Geelong Grammar School (Victoria, Australia). This involved training of teaching staff in the principles and skills of positive psychology. Ongoing support was provided by The Positive Psychology Center staff, who remained in-residence for the entire year.[285]

Staats, Hupp and Hagley (2008) used positive psychology to explore academic honesty. They identified positive traits displayed by heroes, then determined if the presence of these traits in students predicted future intent to cheat. The results of their research: ‘an effective working model of heroism in the context of the academic environment’ (Staats, Hupp & Hagley, 2008).[286]

School grades of children

According to a study reported in the NY Post newspaper, 48% of parents reward their children's good grades with cash or something else of meaning. Among many families in the United States, this is controversial. Although psychology experts support the offer of reward for good behavior as a better alternative than the use of punishment for bad behavior, in some circumstances, families cannot afford to give their children an average of 16 dollars for every good grade earned. Alternatives for money include allowing a child extra time on a computer or staying up later than usual. Some psychology experts believe the best reward is praise and encouragement because material rewards can cause long-term negative effects for children.

A study, regarding rewards for children, conducted in 1971 by psychologist, Edward L. Deci, at the University of Rochester, is still referenced today. Featured in the New York Times, it focused on the short- and long-term effects of rewards for positive behavior. Deci suggested rewards for positive behavior is an effective incentive for only a short period. At the outset, rewards can support motivation to work hard and strive towards personal goals. However, once rewards cease, children showed less interest in the task relative to participants who never received rewards. Deci pointed out, at a young age, children's natural instinct is to resist people who try to control their behavior, which he cited as support for his conclusion rewards for good behavior have limited effectiveness.

In contrast, the New York Times featured research findings that supported the merits of offering rewards to children for good behavior. Expert economists argued children experiencing trouble with their behavior or schoolwork should have numerous helpful options, including rewards. Although children might well experience an initial attraction to financial or material, a love for learning could develop subsequently. Despite the controversy regarding the use of rewards, some experts believe the best way to motivate a child is to offer rewards at the beginning of the school year, but if unsuccessful they recommend teachers and parents stop using the reward system. Because of individual differences among children, no one method will work for everyone. Some children respond well to the use of rewards for positive behavior, while others evidence negative effects. The results seem to depend on the person.[citation needed]

Youth development

Positive youth development focuses on the promotion of healthy development rather than viewing youth as prone to problems needing to be addressed. This is accomplished through programs and efforts by communities, schools, and government agencies.[287]

Work

Main article: Happiness at work

It has been argued that happiness at work is one of the driving forces behind positive outcomes at work, rather than just being a resultant product.[288]

Despite a large body of positive psychological research into the relationship between happiness and productivity,[289][290][291] happiness at work has traditionally been seen as a potential by-product of positive outcomes at work, rather than a pathway to success in business. However a growing number of scholars, including Boehm and Lyubomirsky, argue that it should be viewed as one of the major sources of positive outcomes in the workplace.[288][292]

Human Resource Management

A practical application of positive psychology is to assist individuals and organizations in identifying strengths so as to increase and sustain well-being. Therapists, counselors, coaches, various psychological professionals, HR departments, business strategists, and others, are using new methods and techniques to broaden and build upon the strengths of a wide population of individuals. This includes those not suffering from mental illness or disorder.

Workplace

Main article: Positive psychology in the workplace

Positive psychology has been implemented in business management practice, but has faced challenges. Wong & Davey (2007)[293] noted managers can introduce positive psychology to a workplace, but they might struggle with positive ways to apply it to employees. Furthermore, for employees to welcome and commit to positive psychology, its application within an organization must be transparent.[294] Managers must also understand the implementation of positive psychology will not necessarily combat any commitment challenges that exist. However, with its implementation employees might become more optimistic and open to new concepts or management practices.[295]

In their article "The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?",[296] S. Lyubomirsky et al. report: "Study after study shows that happiness precedes important outcomes and indicators of thriving, including fulfilling and productive work".

Positive psychology, when applied correctly, can provide employees with a greater opportunity to use skills and vary work duties. However, changing work conditions and roles can lead to stress among employees if they are improperly supported by management. This is particularly true for employees who must meet the expectations of organizations with unrealistic goals and targets.[297] Thomas and Tasker (2010) showed less worker autonomy, fewer opportunities for development, less-enriched work roles, and lower levels of supervisor support reflected the effect of industry growth on job satisfaction.[298]

Can an organization implement positive change? Lewis et al. (2007) developed appreciative inquiry (AI), which is an integrated, organizational-level methodology for approaching organizational development. Appreciative inquiry is based on the generation of organizational resourcefulness, which is accomplished by accessing a variety of human psychological processes, such as: positive emotional states, imagination, social cohesion, and the social construction of reality.[299]

A relatively new practice in the workplace is recruiting and developing people based on their strengths (what they love to do, are naturally good at and energises them). Standard Chartered Bank pioneered this approach in the early 2000s. More and more organisations are realising the benefit of recruiting people who are in their element in the job as opposed to simply having the right competencies for the job. Aviva, Morrisons (a large UK supermarket) and Starbucks have all adopted this approach.[300]

Psychologist Howard Gardner has extensively researched the merit of undertaking good work at one's job. He suggested young generations (particularly in the United States) are taught to focus on the selfish pursuit of money for its own sake, although having money does not engender happiness, and psychological studies show that there is a strong correlation between the wealthy and experience of intensively negative emotions.[301] Gardner's proposed alternatives loosely follow the pleasant/good/meaningful life classifications outlined above; he believes young people should be trained to pursue excellence in their field, as well as engagement (see flow, above) in accordance with their moral belief systems.[302]