Understanding Happiness

To most people happiness means a fleeting emotion attached to a nice experience. But most current research concerns something different. (Reuters: Thierry Roge)


It is fashionable for writers and media commentators to discuss happiness. It was not always so.


When happiness was considered a mysterious, ephemeral state of mind, it was not worthy of serious consideration. But over the last few decades, science has begun to lift the veil of mystery, revealing happiness as an ordinary state of mind that can be studied and understood.





Perhaps the place to start this description is with the word itself. Happiness, like so many English words, is bothersome in having more than one meaning. To most people it means a fleeting emotion attached to a nice experience. Like a cup of tea on a hot day, or resting after a job well done. But most current research concerns something different.



The form of happiness I will describe is a mood, rather than an emotion. Whereas emotions are fleeting, moods are more stable. They represent a deep feeling state which is constantly present even if we lose contact with it sometimes. And this mood-happiness is what researchers commonly refer to as Subjective Wellbeing, but which I will continue to call happiness.




The reason this feeling state has become such a popular area of study is that it exhibits some very interesting characteristics. Perhaps the most important is that it is positive. Because of this, people normally feel good about themselves. Moreover, their feelings of positivity are so remarkably stable it has led to the idea that people have a 'set-point' for their level of happiness which is genetically determined.



This stability has been amply demonstrated by the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. This project has regularly measured the happiness of the Australian population since April 2001. Each survey involves 2,000 randomly invited people who record their happiness using our standard measurement instrument, the Personal Wellbeing Index.



The most remarkable statistic to emerge is that, between these surveys, the average level of population happiness has varied by only three percentage points. How can this be so? We propose that happiness is controlled by a management system called Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis. This draws an analogy with the control of physiological systems, such as body temperature, to suggest we hold happiness within a fairly narrow range of values. The precise width of this range is uncertain but my guess is about 12 percentage points, or 6 points on either side of the set-point.





This homeostatic system is also resilient. When unusually good or bad experiences happen, the system is briefly defeated, but it then bounces us back to restore happiness to within the normal range. At least, that is what normally happens. However, all homeostatic systems have a limited capacity to absorb challenge to their authority. If negative experiences become too strong, for too long, the system cannot recover. Then, happiness lies persistently below its normal range, with a consequential high risk of depression.






So, how can people increase their homeostatic resilience? They need resources, and we characterise these as external or internal. The two major external resources are relationships and money. Having an emotionally intimate relationship is the most powerful defence. A confidant may help to avoid negative challenges. Moreover, when negative experiences do occur, they are available to talk through the problem; an age-old and effective remedy to the loss of happiness.




The other major external resource is money. Its primary importance is, of course, to provide the necessities of life. But beyond this, it allows defences to be purchased. Don't like cleaning your house? No problem if you have the money. Just pay someone else to do it. But note, this is the defence of mood-happiness. It is not 'buying' happiness through the purchase of luxury goods. Such purchases yield only emotional happiness, which adapts, ensuring that such pleasant joys will be fleeting.





So is more always better? We believe it is. Evolution has supplied a highly developed 'on' button that drives us to seek more and more resources. This is a useful strategy in a resource-poor environment but is not well adapted to modern life. We particularly fall foul of this old programming when it comes to money. How much homeostatic defence can one buy?




The answer, averaged across Australia, is that happiness rises only marginally beyond a gross household income of about $100,000, and after $150,000 there is no further reliable increase. The reason is that some sources of challenge demand more than money. The problems of having a bad marriage or unpleasant children are not solved by earning more. An alternative strategy is to invest more time in personal relationships. Not only may this solve interpersonal problems but is also a hot strategy for increasing resilience.





When these external defences fail, as occasionally they must, all is not lost. The processes of thinking now get to work, with the aim of trivialising the bad event. So, you got fired from work? You soon convince yourself that it was a lousy, dead-end job anyway and you are lucky to have escaped. Such 'cognitive restructuring' empowers us to rationalise the situation to our own advantage and to feel normally positive once again.




Together, these external and internal resources allow us to meet most of the challenges we face. To feel positive about life is normal. It is our genes' way of telling us we are okay.





Bob Cummins is professor of psychology at Deakin University. He is a collaborator on the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index - research which measures how everyday Australians are feeling about themselves and their lives.

看这个还真是累啊