Well-being is a multifaceted topic studied in psychology, especially positive psychology. Biologically, well-being is highly influenced by endogenous molecules that impact happiness and euphoria in organisms, often referred to as "well-being related markers".[1][2][3][4] Related concepts are eudaimonia, happiness, flourishing, quality of life, contentment,[5] and meaningful life.
Theories
Central theories are Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being, Ryff's Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being, Corey Keyes' work on flourishing, and Seligman's contributions to positive psychology and his theories on authentic happiness and P.E.R.M.A.
Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, "the good life" or flourishing, living according to what holds the greatest value in life – the factors that contribute the most to a well-lived and fulfilling life. While not attempting a strict definition of the good life, positive psychologists agree that one must live a happy, engaged, and meaningful life in order to experience "the good life". Martin Seligman referred to "the good life" as "using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification".[6] According to Christopher Peterson, "eudaimonia trumps hedonism".[7]
Research on positive psychology, well-being, eudaimonia and happiness, and the theories of Diener, Ryff, Keyes and Seligmann cover a broad range of levels and topics, including "the biological, personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global dimensions of life."[8] Happiness was famously analyzed by Aristotle as being the sole ultimate goal of human existence, meaning that he viewed it the only thing important in its own right, not merely as a means to an end. [9]
The pursuit[10] of happiness predicts both positive emotions and less depressive symptoms. People[10] who prioritize happiness are more psychologically able, all else held equal.
Methodology of study
Well-being measurement
Different ways of measuring well-being reveal different contributing factors. The correlation between two of these, life satisfaction and happiness, in the World Values Survey (1981–2005) is only 0.47.[11] These are different, but related concepts which are used interchangeably outside of academia. Typically, life satisfaction, or evaluative wellbeing is measured with Cantril's self-anchoring ladder, a questionnaire where wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1–10. Happiness or hedonic/Affective well-being measurement is measured with the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), a more complex scale.
Limitations
The UK Government's Department of Health compiled a factsheet in 2014, in which it is stated that the key limitations to well-being, quality of life and life satisfaction research are that:[12]
There are numerous associations and correlations in the body of evidence, but few causal relationships, since existing longitudinal datasets "do not use consistent wellbeing and predictor measures at different time points";
After controlling for mental health status, not many of the found associations are still significant;
Subgroup analyses are rare;
There are too few studies to conduct meta-analyses;
There are too few interventional studies.
Major factors
For evaluative well-being (life satisfaction)
Mental health is the strongest[13] individual predictor of life satisfaction. Mental illness is associated[14] with poorer well-being. In fact, mental health is the strongest determinant of quality of life at a later age.
Studies[15] have documented the relationship between anxiety and quality of life.
The VOXEU[16] analysis of happiness showed the principal determinants of an adult's life satisfaction to be income, parenting, family break up, mother's mental health and schooling. The factors that explain life satisfaction roughly map (negatively) to those factors that explain misery. They are first and foremost diagnosed depression/anxiety, which explains twice as much as the next factor, physical health (number of medical conditions), that explains just as much variance in subjective well-being between people, as income and whether someone is partnered. These factors count twice as much as each of whether someone is employed and whether they are a non-criminal, which in turn are 3 times as important as years of education.
Overall, the best predictor of an adult's life satisfaction is their emotional health as a child as reported by the mother and child. It trumps factors like the qualifications that someone gets and their behaviour at 16 as reported by the mother. A child and therefore an adult's emotional health is most affected itself by a mother's mental health, which is just over twice as important as family income. 2/3 as important as family income is parent's involvement, which is 0.1 partial correlation coefficients more important than aggressive parenting (negative), father's unemployment (negative), family conflict (negative) and whether the mother worked in the subject's 1st year of life.
Whether the mother worked thereafter has 0 correlation with well-being, however. In terms of non-family factors, the place where someone goes to secondary school matters a fair bit more than observed family background altogether, which in turn is slightly more important than the place where someone went to primary school.
For affective well-being (happiness)
The main determinants of affective well-being, by correlation and effect size are:[11]
Corruption index (-0.54)
Control of corruption (0.47)
Bureaucratic quality (0.40)
PPP-adjusted GDP per capita (although there is evidence of publication bias) (0.39)
Economic freedom (0.35)
Human rights violations (-0.33)
Political and ethnic violence (-0.28)
Civil liberties (0.28)
Life expectancy at birth (0.27)
Satisfaction with standard of living (0.24)
Biological factors
Gender
Over the last 33 years, a significant decrease in women's happiness leads researchers to believe that men are happier than women.[17] In contrast, a Pew Research Centre survey found that more women are satisfied with their lives than men, overall.[18] Other research has found no gender gap in happiness.[19]
Part of these findings could be due to the way men and women differ in calculating their happiness. Women calculate the positive self-esteem, closeness in their relationships and religion. Men calculate positive self-esteem, active leisure and mental control.[20] Therefore, neither men nor women are at greater risk of being less happy than the other. Earlier in life, women are more likely than men to fulfill their goals (material goals and family life aspirations), thereby increasing their life satisfaction and overall happiness. However, it is later in life that men fulfill their goals, are more satisfied with their family life and financial situation and, as a result, their overall happiness surpasses that of women.[21] Possible explanations include the unequal division of labor within the household,[22] or that women experience more variance (more extremes) in emotion but are generally happier.[23] Effects of gender on well-being are paradoxical: men report feeling less happy than women,[24] however, women are more susceptible to depression.[25]
A study was conducted by Siamak Khodarahimi to determine the roles of gender and age on positive psychology constructs – psychological hardiness, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and happiness – among 200 Iranian adolescents and 200 young adults who were questioned through various tests. The study found that the males of the sample showed significantly higher rates in psychological hardiness, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and happiness than females, regardless of age.[26]
Genetics
Happiness is partly genetically based.[27][28] Based on twin studies, 50 percent of a given human's happiness level is genetically determined, 10 percent is affected by life circumstances and situation, and a remaining 40 percent of happiness is subject to self-control.[29]
Whether emotions are genetically determined or not was studied by David Lykken and Auke Tellegen. They found that up to 80% of the variance in long-term sense of well-being among Minnesotan twins separated at birth was attributable to heredity.[30] The remaining theoretical 20%, however, still leaves room for significant change in thoughts and behavior from environmental/learned sources that should not be understated, and the interpretation of variance in twin studies is controversial, even among clinical psychologists.[31]
Individual differences in both overall Eudaimonia, identified loosely with self-control, and in the facets of eudaimonia are inheritable. Evidence from one study supports 5 independent genetic mechanisms underlying the Ryff facets of this trait, leading to a genetic construct of eudaimonia in terms of general self-control, and four subsidiary biological mechanisms enabling the psychological capabilities of purpose, agency, growth, and positive social relations.[32]
Neurology
It is generally accepted that happiness is at least in part mediated through dopaminergic, adrenergic and serotonergic metabolism.[33] A correlation has been found between hormone levels and happiness. SSRIs, such as Prozac, are used to adjust the levels of serotonin in the clinically unhappy. Researchers, such as Alexander, have indicated that many peoples usage of narcotics may be the unwitting result of attempts to readjust hormone levels to cope with situations that make them unhappy.[34]
A positive relationship has been found between the volume of gray matter in the right precuneus area of the brain and the subject's subjective happiness score.[35] Meditation based interventions, including mindfulness, have been found to correlate with a significant gray matter increase within the precuneus.[36][37][38][39][40]
Neuroscience's findings
Neuroscience and brain imaging have shown increasing potential for helping science understand happiness and sadness, as parts of the brain have been identified as having a role in the control of happiness, specifically with regard to research in the field of neurotransmitters.[41][42] Though it may be impossible to achieve any comprehensive objective measure of happiness, some physiological correlates to happiness can be measured. Stefan Klein, in his book The Science of Happiness, links the dynamics of neurobiological systems (i.e., dopaminergic, opiate) to the concepts and findings of positive psychology and social psychology.[43]
Nobel prize winner Eric Kandel and researcher Cynthia Fu described very accurate diagnoses of depression just by looking at fMRI brain scans.[44] By identifying neural correlates for emotions, scientists may be able to use methods like brain scans to tell us more about the different ways of being "happy". Richard Davidson has conducted research to determine which parts of the brain are involved in positive emotions. He found that the left prefrontal cortex is more activated when we are happy and is also associated with greater ability to recover from negative emotions as well as enhanced ability to suppress negative emotions. Davidson found that people can train themselves to increase activation in this area of their brains.[45] It is thought that our brain can change throughout our lives as a result of our experiences; this is known as neuroplasticity.
The evolutionary perspective offers an alternative approach to understanding happiness and quality of life. Key guiding questions are: What features are included in the brain that allow humans to distinguish between positive and negative states of mind? How do these features improve humans' ability to survive and reproduce? The evolutionary perspective claims that the answers to these questions point towards an understanding of what happiness is about and how to best exploit the capacities of the brain with which humans are endowed. This perspective is presented formally and in detail by the evolutionary biologist Bjørn Grinde in his book Darwinian Happiness.[46]
Personal factors
In relation with age
In adolescence
There has been a significant focus in past research on adulthood, in regards to well-being and development and although eudaimonia is not a new field of study, there has been little research done in the areas of adolescence and youth. Research that has been done on this age group had previously explored more negative aspects than well-being, such as problem and risk behaviours (i.e. drug and alcohol use).
Researchers who conducted a study in 2013 recognized the absence of adolescents in eudaimonic research and the importance of this developmental stage. Adolescents rapidly face cognitive, social and physical changes, making them prime subjects to study for development and well-being. The eudaimonic identity theory was used in their research to examine the development of identity through self-discovery and self-realization. They emphasize the personal value found in discovering and appeasing one's “daimon” (daemon) through subjective experiences that develop eudaimonic happiness from aligning with one's true self.[47]: 250
Researchers focused their studies on PYD (positive youth development) and the eudaimonic identity theory in the context of three developmental elements: self-defining activities, personal expressiveness and goal-directed behaviours.
They determined that adolescents sample multiple self-defining activities; these activities aid in identity formation, as individuals choose activities that they believe represents who they are. These self-defining activities also help determine the adolescent's social environments. For example, an adolescent involved in sports, would likely surround themselves with like-minded active and competitive people.
Personal expressiveness, as coined by psychologist A. S. Waterman, are the activities that we choose to express and connect with our “daimon” through subjective experiences.[48]
Finally, goal-directed behaviours, are developed through goal setting, where individuals work towards identity establishment. Adolescents recognize their passions, abilities and talents and aim to fulfill their goals and behave in a way that appeases their true self.[47]: 251
The study on adolescents was conducted in Italy, Chile and the United States, which produced slightly varied outcomes. Outcomes were contingent on availability, access and choice of opportunities (activities).[47]: 254 Socioeconomic context also affected the results, as not all individuals could access the activities that may be more in-line with their true selves.
The Personally Expressive Activities Questionnaire (PEAQ) was used to conduct the study. Adolescence was the youngest age group that the PEAQ was used on. The PEAQ asked adolescents to self-report on activities they participate in and describe themselves with self-defining activities.[47]: 260 It was reported that 80% of adolescents defined themselves with two to four self-defining activities signifying an understanding in adolescence of self-concept through the domains of leisure, work and academia.[47]: 255
Leisure activities were found to have the largest impact on individuals because these activities were the most self-directed of the three domains, as adolescents had the choice of activity, and were more likely to be able to align it with their true selves. The study found that subjective experiences were more important than the activities themselves and that adolescents reported higher levels of well-being. They reported that when adolescents express themselves through self-defining activities across multiple domains, they have a clearer image of themselves, of what they want to achieve and higher wellness. Goal-setting was found to be a unique predictor; when adolescents work towards goals set by themselves and accomplish them, they are likely to have a clearer emerging identity and higher well-being. Researchers found that more adolescents were happy when they were involved in self-chosen activities because the activities were chosen in line with their true self.[47]: 257–259
In midlife
The midlife crisis may mark the first reliable drop in happiness during an average human's life. Evidence suggests most people generally become happier with age, with the exception of the years 40 – 50, which is the typical age at which a crisis might occur. Researchers specify that people in both their 20s and 70s are happier than during midlife, although the extent of happiness changes at different rates. For example, feelings of stress and anger tend to decline after age 20, worrying drops after age 50, and enjoyment very slowly declines in adulthood but finally starts to rise after age 50.[49][50][51] Well-being in late life is more likely to be related to other contextual factors including proximity to death.[52][53] However, most of this terminal decline in well-being could be attributed to other changes in age-normative functional declines including physical health and function.[54] Also, there is growing debate that assumptions that a single population estimate of age-related changes in well-being truly reflects the lived experiences of older adults has been questioned. The use of growth mixture modelling frameworks has allowed researchers to identify homogenous groups of individuals who are more similar to each other than the population based on their level and change in well-being and has shown that most report stable well-being in their late life and in the decade prior to death.[55] These findings are based on decades of data, and control for cohort groups; the data avoids the risk that the drops in happiness during midlife are due to populations' unique midlife experiences, like a war. The studies have also controlled for income, job status and parenting (as opposed to childlessness) to try to isolate the effects of age.
Researchers found support for the notion of age changes inside the individual that affect happiness. This could be for any number of reasons. Psychological factors could include greater awareness of one's self and preferences; an ability to control desires and have more realistic expectations – unrealistic expectations tend to foster unhappiness; moving closer to death may motivate people to pursue personal goals; improved social skills, like forgiveness, may take years to develop – the practice of forgiveness seems linked to higher levels of happiness; or happier people may live longer and are slightly overrepresented in the elderly population. Age-related chemical changes might also play a role.[50][51][56][23]
Other studies have found older individuals reported more health problems, but fewer problems overall. Young adults reported more anger, anxiety, depression, financial problems, troubled relationships and career stress. Researchers also suggest depression in the elderly is often due largely to passivity and inaction – they recommend people continue to undertake activities that bring happiness, even in old age.[57]
The activity restriction model of depressed affect suggests that stressors that disrupt traditional activities of daily life can lead to a decrease in mental health. The elderly population is vulnerable to activity restriction because of the disabling factors related to age. Increases in scheduled activity, as well as social support, can decrease the chances of activity restriction.[58]
In relation with depression and languishing
See also: Lived experience
A study by Keyes found that there are major costs of depression, which 14% of adults experience annually: it impairs social roles; it costs billions each year due to work absenteeism, diminished productivity, and healthcare costs; finally, depression accounts for at least one-third of suicides. Therefore, it is important to study flourishing to learn about what is possible if issues such as depression are tackled and how the ramifications of focusing on the positive make life better not just for one person, but also for others around them.[59]
Flourishing has significant positive aspects magnified when compared to languishing adults and when languishing adults are compared to depressed adults, as explained by Keyes. For example, languishing adults have the same amount of chronic disease as those that are depressed whereas flourishing adults are in exceptionally better physical health. Languishing adults miss as many days at work as depressed adults and, in fact, visit doctors and therapists more than depressed adults.[60]
Positive psychology interventions (PPI) in patients
A strengths-based approach to personal positive change aims to have clinical psychology place an equal weight on both positive and negative functioning when attempting to understand and treat distress.[61] This rationale is based on empirical findings. Because positive characteristics interact with negative life events to predict disorder the exclusive study of negative life events could produce misleading results.[62]
Thus, psychologists are looking to use positive psychology to treat patients. Amy Krentzman, among the others, discussed positive intervention as a way to treat patients. She defined positive intervention as a therapy or activity primarily aimed at increasing positive feelings, positive behaviors, or positive cognitions, as opposed to focusing on negative thoughts or dysfunctional behaviors. A way of using positive intervention as a clinical treatment is to use positive activity interventions. Positive activity interventions, or PAIs, are brief self-administered exercises that promote positive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Two widely used PAIs are “Three Good Things” and “Best Future Self.” “Three Good Things” requires a patient to daily document, for a week, three events that went well during the day, and the respective cause, or causes (this exercise can be modified with counterfactual thinking, that is, adding the imagination of things had them been worse[63]). “Best Future Self” has a patient “think about their life in the future, and imagine that everything has gone as well as it possibly could. They have worked hard and succeeded at accomplishing all of their life goals. Think of this as the realization of all of their life dreams.” The patient is then asked to write down what they imagined. These positive interventions have been shown to decrease depression,[64][65] and interventions focusing on strengths and positive emotions can, in fact, be as effective in treating disorder as other more commonly used approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy.[66][67] Moreover, the apparent effect of PPIs cannot be caused by publication bias, according to a meta-analysis on 49 studies (2009). PPIs studied included producing gratitude letters, performing optimistic thinking, replaying positive life experiences, and socializing with people.[67]
Also, in a newer meta-analysis (39 studies, 6,139 participants, 2012), the standardized mean difference was 0.34 higher for subjective well-being, 0.20 for psychological well-being and 0.23 for depression. Three to six months after the intervention, the effects for subjective well-being and psychological well-being were still significant, so effects seem fairly sustainable. However, in high-quality studies, the positive effect was weaker, though positive, so authors considered further high-quality studies necessary to strengthen the evidence. They claimed that the above-mentioned meta-analysis (2009) did not put enough weight on the quality of studies. PPIs found positive included blessings, kindness practices, taking personal goals, and showing gratitude.[65]
The interventions called "Gratitude Journaling" and "Three Good Things" seem to operate via gratitude.[64] There is evidence that, when gratitude journaling, focussing on quality over quantity as well as people more than possessions, yields greater benefits.[68] There is also evidence of a diminished effect from gratitude journaling if it is done more than once or twice a week. Journaling sans gratitude is effective in decreasing negative emotions in general, which suggests that the act of journaling, rather than gratitude alone, is involved in the treatment effect.[69]
Positive psychology seeks to inform clinical psychology of the potential to expand its approach, and of the merit of the possibilities. Given a fair opportunity, positive psychology might well change priorities to better address the breadth and depth of the human experience in clinical settings.
Post-traumatic growth
Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is a possible outcome after a traumatic event, besides posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Following a traumatic event, for instance rape, incest, cancer, attack, or combat, "it is normal to experience debilitating symptoms of depression and anxiety."[70] A person who shows PTG however, will experience these negative outcomes for a time and then show an increase in well-being, higher than it was before the trauma occurred. Martin Seligman, a founder of positive psychology, emphasizes that "arriving at a higher level of psychological functioning than before" is a key point in PTG.[71] If instead an individual experiences a depressive period but recovers from an incident and returns to their normal level of psychological functioning, they are demonstrating resilience.[71] This suggests that in PTG, the trauma acts as a turning point for the person to achieve greater well-being. Seligman recognizes "the fact that trauma often sets the stage for growth" and given the right tools, individuals can make the most of that opportunity."[71]
When reflecting on a traumatic growth, Seligman suggests using the following five elements to facilitate PTG: understand the response to trauma, reduce anxiety, utilize constructive disclosure, create a trauma narrative, and articulate life principles and stances that are more robust to challenge.[71] Someone experiencing PTG will achieve elements of Seligman's "good life" theory, including a more meaningful and purposeful valuing of life, improved positive relationships, accomplishment, and a more optimistic and open mindset according to the broaden-and-build theory.[72]
Post-traumatic growth in constructive journalism
The phenomenon of PTG is applicable to many disciplines. The construct is important not only for just soldiers, emergency responders, and survivors of traumatic events, but on average, for everyday citizens facing typical adversity. One way to expose citizens to stories of PTG is through constructive journalism. Constructive journalism, as defined by PhD student Karen McIntyre at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, is "an emerging style of journalism in which positive psychology techniques are applied to news work with the aim of engaging readers by creating more productive news stories, all while maintaining core journalistic functions".[73] Cathrine Gyldensted, an experienced reporter with a Masters in applied positive psychology and coauthor of two books, demonstrated that typical news reporting, which is associated with negative valence, harms mood.[74] Using PTG to focus on victims' strengths and instances of overcoming adversity encourages readers to implement similar ideals in their own lives. "So the goal of positive psychology in well-being theory is to measure and to build human flourishing."[71] Combining positive psychology constructs like PTG, PERMA, and "broaden and build" with journalism could potentially improve affect and inspire individuals about the benefits of positive psychology.
PERMA not only plays a role in our own personal lives but also can be used for public major news stories. With this model, journalists can instead focus on the positives of a story and ask questions about how conflicts or even tragedies have brought people together, how someone has experienced post-traumatic growth, and more. News stories then shift the perspective from a victimizing one to an uplifting one. Positive psychology is slowly but steadily making its way through news reporting via constructive journalism. PERMA helps journalists ask the right questions to continue that progress by bringing the focus of a potentially negative story to the positives and solutions.[75]
Affect - ratio of positive to negative affect
Fredrickson and Losada postulated in 2005 that the ratio of positive to negative affect, known as the critical positivity ratio, can distinguish individuals that flourish from those that do not. Languishing was characterized by a ratio of positive to negative affect of 2.5. Optimal functioning or flourishing was argued to occur at a ratio of 4.3. The point at which flourishing changes to languishing is called the Losada line and is placed at the positivity ratio of 2.9. Those with higher ratios were claimed to have broader behavioral repertoires, greater flexibility and resilience to adversity, more social resources, and more optimal functioning in many areas of their life.[76] The model also predicted the existence of an upper limit to happiness, reached at a positivity ratio of 11.5. Fredrickson and Losada claimed that at this limit, flourishing begins to disintegrate and productivity and creativity decrease. They suggested as positivity increased, so to "appropriate negativity" needs to increase. This was described as time-limited, practicable feedback connected to specific circumstances, i.e. constructive criticism.[76]
This positivity ratio theory was widely accepted until 2013, when Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, co-authored a paper with Alan Sokal and Harris Friedman, showing that the mathematical basis of the paper was invalid.[77] Fredrickson partially retracted the paper, agreeing that the math may be flawed, but maintaining that the empirical evidence is still valid.[78] Brown and colleagues insist there is no evidence for the critical positivity ratio whatsoever.[79]
In relation with basic emotions
Most psychologists focus on a person's most basic emotions. There are thought to be between seven and fifteen basic emotions. The emotions can be combined in many ways to create more subtle variations of emotional experience. This suggests that any attempt to wholly eliminate negative emotions from our life would have the unintended consequence of losing the variety and subtlety of our most profound emotional experiences. Efforts to increase positive emotions will not automatically result in decreased negative emotions, nor will decreased negative emotions necessarily result in increased positive emotions.[80] Russell and Feldman Barrett (1992) described emotional reactions as core affects, which are primitive emotional reactions that are consistently experienced but often not acknowledged; they blend pleasant and unpleasant as well as activated and deactivated dimensions that we carry with us at an almost unconscious level.[81]
While a 2012 study found that wellbeing was higher for people who experienced both positive and negative emotions,[82][83] evidence suggests negative emotions can be damaging. In an article titled "The undoing effect of positive emotions", Barbara Fredrickson et al. hypothesized positive emotions undo the cardiovascular effects of negative emotions. When people experience stress, they show increased heart rate, higher blood sugar, immune suppression, and other adaptations optimized for immediate action. If unregulated, the prolonged physiological activation can lead to illness, coronary heart disease, and heightened mortality. Both lab and survey research substantiate that positive emotions help people under stress to return to a preferable, healthier physiological baseline.[84] Other research shows that improved mood is one of the various benefits of physical exercise.[85]
Behavioral repertoire
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions suggests positive emotions (e.g. happiness, interest, anticipation)[86] broaden one's awareness and encourage novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions. Over time, this broadened behavioral repertoire builds skills and resources. For example, curiosity about a landscape becomes valuable navigational knowledge; pleasant interactions with a stranger become a supportive friendship; aimless physical play becomes exercise and physical excellence. Positive emotions are contrasted with negative emotions, which prompt narrow survival-oriented behaviors. For example, the negative emotion of anxiety leads to the specific fight-or-flight response for immediate survival.[86]
Elevation
Main article: Elevation (emotion)
After several years of researching disgust, Jonathan Haidt, and others, studied its opposite; the term "elevation" was coined. Elevation is a pleasant moral emotion, triggered by witnessing virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness and resulting in a desire to act morally and do "good". As an emotion it has a biological basis, and is sometimes characterized by a feeling of expansion in the chest or a tingling feeling on the skin.[87][88]
In relation with experience
Thomas Nagel has said that "There are elements which, if added to one's experience, make life better; there are other elements which if added to one's experience, make life worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is emphatically positive."[89][90]
Experiences are central to a proposed dimension of well-being called psychological richness. This additional dimension of well-being was proposed as an empirically-supported expansion to the hedonic vs. eudaimonic well-being dichotomy. Whereas hedonic well-being can be measured via life satisfaction, and eudaimonic well-being can be measured via one’s perceptions of the meaning of their life, psychological richness is measured via characteristic experiences. Psychological richness is cultivated through having psychologically rich experiences, which are characterized as varying, interesting, novel, challenging, and perspective-changing, as subjectively measured by the experiencer. One line of evidence for this comes from studies conducted with college students, where students who went on trips (new and unusual experiences), whether they be short excursions or semester-length study abroad programs, reported increased psychological richness, but not increases in happiness or meaning (Oishi et al., 2021).[91] In contrast to hedonic well-being, which is thought to result in personal satisfaction, and eudaimonic well-being, which is thought to result in societal contribution, psychological richness is thought to result in wisdom.[92]
The concept of "flourishing"
Main article: Flourishing
The term flourishing, in positive psychology, refers to optimal human functioning. It comprises four parts: goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience (Fredrickson, 2005).[93] According to Fredrickson (2005), goodness is made up of: happiness, contentment, and effective performance; generativity is about making life better for future generations, and is defined by “broadened thought-action repertoires and behavioral flexibility”; growth involves the use of personal and social assets; and resilience reflects survival and growth after enduring a hardship.[93] A flourishing life stems from mastering all four of these parts. Two contrasting ideologies are languishing and psychopathology. On the mental health continuum, these are considered intermediate mental health disorders, reflecting someone living an unfulfilled and perhaps meaningless life. Those who languish experience more emotional pain, psychosocial deficiency, restrictions in regular activities, and missed workdays.[93]
Fredrickson & Losada (2005) conducted a study on university students, operationalizing positive and negative affect.[93] Based on a mathematical model which has been strongly criticized,[77] and now been formally withdrawn by Fredrickson as invalid,[94] Fredrickson & Losada claimed to have discovered a critical positivity ratio, above which people would flourish and below which they would not. Although Fredrickson claims that her experimental results are still valid,[95] these experimental results have also been questioned due to poor statistical methodology, and Alan Sokal has pointed out that "given [Fredrickson and Losada's] experimental design and method of data analysis, no data whatsoever could possibly give any evidence of any nonlinearity in the relationship between "flourishing" and the positivity ratio — much less evidence for a sharp discontinuity."[96]
Another study surveyed a U.S. sample of 3,032 adults, aged 25–74. Results showed 17.2 percent of adults were flourishing, while 56.6 percent were moderately mentally healthy. Some common characteristics of a flourishing adult included: educated, older, married and wealthy. The study findings suggest there is room for adults to improve as less than 20 percent of Americans are living a flourishing life. (Keyes, 2002).[59]
Benefits from living a flourishing life emerge from research on the effects of experiencing a high ratio of positive to negative affect. The studied benefits of positive affect are increased responsiveness, "broadened behavioral repertoires", increased instinct, and increased perception and imagination.[93] In addition, the good feelings associated with flourishing result in improvements to immune system functioning, cardiovascular recovery, lessened effects of negative affect, and frontal brain asymmetry.[93] Other benefits to those of moderate mental health or moderate levels of flourishing were: stronger psychological and social performance, high resiliency, greater cardiovascular health, and an overall healthier lifestyle (Keyes, 2007).[97] The encountered benefits of flourishing suggest a definition: "[flourishing] people experience high levels of emotional, psychological and social well being due to vigor and vitality, self-determination, continuous self- growth, close relationships and a meaningful and purposeful life" (Siang-Yang, 2006, p. 70).[98]
Happiness
Happiness measurement
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire
Psychologists Peter Hills and Michael Argyle developed the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire[99] as a broad measure of psychological well-being. The approach was criticized for lacking a theoretical model of happiness and for overlapping too much with related concepts such as self-esteem, sense of purpose, social interest, kindness, sense of humor and aesthetic appreciation.[100]
Satisfaction with Life Scale
"Happiness" encompasses different emotional and mental phenomena. One method of assessment is Ed Diener's Satisfaction with Life Scale. According to Diener, this five-question survey corresponds well with impressions from friends and family, and low incidence of depression.[49][clarification needed]
Rather than long-term, big picture appraisals, some methods attempt to identify the amount of positive affect from one activity to the next. Scientists use beepers to remind volunteers to write down the details of their current situation. Alternatively, volunteers complete detailed diary entries each morning about the day before.[49] A discrepancy arises when researchers compare the results of these short-term "experience sampling" methods, with long-term appraisals. Namely, the latter may not be very accurate; people may not know what makes their life pleasant from one moment to the next. For instance, parents' appraisals mention their children as sources of pleasure, while "experience sampling" indicates parents were not enjoying caring for their children, compared to other activities.[49][101]
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains this discrepancy by differentiating between happiness according to the "experiencing self" compared to the "remembering self": when asked to reflect on experiences, memory biases like the Peak-End effect (e.g. we mostly remember the dramatic parts of a vacation, and how it was at the end) play a large role. A striking finding was in a study of colonoscopy patients. Adding 60 seconds to this invasive procedure, Kahneman found participants reported the colonoscopy as more pleasant. This was attributed to making sure the colonoscopy instrument was not moved during the extra 60 seconds – movement is the source of the most discomfort. Thus, Kahneman was appealing to the remembering self's tendency to focus on the end of the experience. Such findings help explain human error in affective forecasting – people's ability to predict their future emotional states.[101]
The "remembering self" may not be the best source of information for pleasing the "experiencing self".
Changes in happiness levels
Daniel Kahneman
Humans exhibit a variety of abilities. This includes an ability of emotional Hedonic Adaptation, an idea suggesting that beauty, fame and money do not generally have lasting effects on happiness (this effect has also been called the Hedonic treadmill). In this vein, some research has suggested that only recent events, meaning those that occurred within the last 3 months, affect happiness levels.[102]
The tendency to adapt, and therefore return to an earlier level of happiness, is illustrated by studies showing lottery winners are no happier in the years after they've won.[49] Other studies have shown paraplegics are nearly as happy as control groups that are not paralyzed,[103] after equally few years. Daniel Kahneman explains: "they are not paraplegic full time... It has to do with allocation of attention". Thus, contrary to our impact biases, lotteries and paraplegia do not change experiences to as great a degree as we would believe.
However, in a newer study (2007), winning a medium-sized lottery prize had a lasting mental wellbeing effect of 1.4 GHQ points on Britons even two years after the event.[104] Moreover, adaptation can be a very slow and incomplete process. Distracting life changes such as the death of a spouse or losing one's job can show measurable changes in happiness levels for several years.[49] Even the "adapted" paraplegics mentioned above did ultimately report lower levels of pleasure (again, they were happier than one would expect, but not fully adapted).[105] Thus, adaptation is a complex process, and while it does mitigate the emotional effects of many life events it cannot mitigate them entirely.