Exercise is one of the most robust ways that people can increase their happiness.  The problem is that it’s just not that much fun.  Enter “Fun Theory”!  By making the stairs into a piano, they increased usage of the stairs by 66%, which means increased happiness now AND increased happiness later (due to the exercise).  Watch the video!

Facebook just launched a gross national happiness index which uses analysis of words used in Facebook posts to measure the country's mood. I'm sure those who study the taxonomy of emotion would love to see more complex measures included. However, this is a potentially wonderful tool and the fact that Facebook is willing to publish this data means that someday they could end up allowing the research community to examine their data. The possibilities are endless.

Some interesting trends from their limited graph....

Thanksgiving (2 years running) is the most positive day of the year...social pressure to be thankful?  Does it mean people are happier or not?

Why is the day after Father's day the least positive day (they have separate indexes for positivity and negativity)?

Why is the 4th of July the least negative day?

Click here to view the index

Following on this study and this article which show that women are less happy than men, I thought I would examine some of the data from our website, YourMorals.org.  Clearly our data is not representative of the population, so we cannot make any claims as to the validity of the trend which the authors describe.  The trend they established, whereby women, who were once happier than men, have become less happy than men over time, is very well researched.  What we can potentially do is examine whether one distinctive group of women, women who visit our website, happen to report more or less life satisfaction than men who visit our website.

As you can see, women actually report more life satisfaction (which is different than happiness, but the authors of the study use both life satisfaction and happiness questions to make their point) than men in our sample and the trend is robust across questions, meaning that women score as ‘more satisfied’ on all five of the questions on Diener’s Satisfaction with Life Scale, the measure we use on YourMorals.org.  Further, the graphs below, broken down by the source of visitors to our site, show that the effect is somewhat robust, meaning that it’s likely not just an oddity of traffic from one particular source.  Women who come from search engines (eg. by looking for ‘morality quiz’) or who read the NY times or who read BeliefNet’s conservative blog site all seem to be more satisfied than their male counterparts.

So what does this tell us?  Obviously since our data is non-representative and non-longitudinal, we can’t say much about the original hypothesis.  However, if we believe the original hypothesis that women are generally less satisfied with life than men, we can perhaps learn something from this group where women seem to do relatively well on scores of life satisfaction.  The authors didn’t really come up with a mechanism for the decline of happiness measures among women and so perhaps inspecting a group that does relatively well can give us clues to the mechanism in the same way that observing that people who have darker skin have less risk for skin cancer can tell us about the mechanism of skin cancer.

What do the women who visit yourmorals.org have in common?   Measurably, our sample is liberal (2.5 on a 7 point scale with 1 being very liberal and 7 being very conservative), younger (mean age = 37.6), very well educated (mean education is somewhere between college educated and having completed some graduate school), and politically attentive (the great majority either pay some attention or a lot of attention to politics).  Less measurably (we do have measures, but not for all visitors), our visitors likely have curiosity (see Todd Kashdan’s book), intellectual desire, and the time to explore those interests.  Perhaps the clue to increasing the subjective well being of women lies somewhere in there.

Most of the data from this article is taken from the General Social Survey, a representative sample of 1,500 Americans done each year.  The pattern is replicated in several other datasets with a general trend that Women used to be more happy than men and have since (1972) become less happy.  Why?

Barry Schwartz’s Paradox of Choice gives me the most plausible answer.  I would be interested in looking at the data further to prove it, but it seems plausible that women are encountering more choice, while men don’t feel the pressure to choose among as many things (eg. taking care of children).

Here is the original article.

It looks like the government of France is following in the footsteps of Bhutan and the United Kingdom and is taking the idea of using happiness as a national indicator more seriously.

The article from the Telegraph is consistent with a growing drumbeat among academics and politicians to consider national indicators of well being.  The challenge is to convince those in policy positions of two things:

-  It's important to remove concerns that productivity goals will be sacrificed. There is research (Deutsch 1975; Hofstede 1980) that indicates that well being and social goals form a distinct cluster from agentic goals like productivity.  How can advocates of well being measures avoid this traditional tension and the inevitable backlash from those who are more productivity focused?  This is especially difficult in times of crisis as research suggests that feelings of threat increase the desire to focus on productivity.

- It’s important to show the scientific validity of measures of happiness.  I am not sure what the right balance is, but on it’s face, “happiness” is not something that can be measured well.  It is too multi-dimensional.  Would it be better to measure more discrete emotions such as societal anxiety, depression, joy, and satisfaction (based on Feldman-Barrett and Russell’s taxonomy of emotions)?  Would it be a more convincing argument if we tried to support the basic psychological needs (from Self Determination theory) of relatedness, autonomy, and competence?  Perhaps adding meaning/curiosity?  My gut tells me that some amount of nuance needs to be added to the word “happiness” to make it more face valid to the general public and that there is room for improvement from calling it “subjective well being”.

It looks like the government of France is following in the footsteps of Bhutan and the United Kingdom and is taking the idea of using happiness as a national indicator more seriously.

The article from the Telegraph is consistent with a growing drumbeat among academics and politicians to consider national indicators of well being.  The challenge is to convince those in policy positions of two things:

-  It’s important to remove concerns that productivity goals will be sacrificed. There is research (Deutsch 1975; Hofstede 1980) that indicates that well being and social goals form a distinct cluster from agentic goals like productivity.  How can advocates of well being measures avoid this traditional tension and the inevitable backlash from those who are more productivity focused?  This is especially difficult in times of crisis as research suggests that feelings of threat increase the desire to focus on productivity.

- It’s important to show the scientific validity of measures of happiness.  I am not sure what the right balance is, but on it’s face, “happiness” is not something that can be measured well.  It is too multi-dimensional.  Would it be better to measure more discrete emotions such as societal anxiety, depression, joy, and satisfaction (based on Feldman-Barrett and Russell’s taxonomy of emotions)?  Would it be a more convincing argument if we tried to support the basic psychological needs (from Self Determination theory) of relatedness, autonomy, and competence?  Perhaps adding meaning/curiosity?  My gut tells me that some amount of nuance needs to be added to the word “happiness” to make it more face valid to the general public and that there is room for improvement from calling it “subjective well being”.

Some of the group that run yourmorals.org are considering writing a paper focusing on Libertarians and so I've been looking at the data for triends.  One consistent pattern we have found is that Libertarians (unsuprisingly) are more self rather than other oriented.  They aren't just extreme conservatives, but are qualitatively different.  They seem to moralize less and are more self vs. other oriented on scales like the Schwartz Values Scale.One hypothesis about this would be that Libertarians are less positively affected by other people.  Happiness research consistently shows that relationships are very important for people's happiness....This is true for both liberals and conservatives.  But is this the case for Libertarians?Consider the following 2 graphs.  The first one shows the relationship between a measure of depression symptoms (BSI - eg. "feeling blue" in the past 7 days) and a measure of abstract feelings toward others (Feeling Towards Others Scale by Belinda Campos at UC-Irvine, eg.  "For me, happiness comes from performing acts of kindness for others.").

....and here is a graph with a similar pattern replacing depression symptoms with Ed Diener's Satisfaction with Life Scale.

The interesting pattern is that feeling close to abstract other people (not explicitly friends or family, for whom the pattern is different) is positively related to life satisfaction and negatively related to depressive symptoms for everyone, liberal or conservative, except libertarians.There are of course caveats to this result (as there are in any research).  Our sample is limited to people who visit our website, who tend to be well educated internet users, so this may only be true for those kinds of people.  Still, this result seems to converge with other evidence, both in our data and in society, that libertarians are more self than other oriented (eg. Ayn Rand's book, the Virtue of Selfishness).  If positive affect motivates many people to be other oriented, then the fact that libertarians lack the other-orientation->positive emotion relationship would help explain their lack of other orientation.

Is it possible to turn fear into altruism? This is positive psychology in a most creative sense. Take something negative, say psychopathy and look at the flip side: empathy. After all, “Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness” (Millon & Davis, 1998). Additionally, a focus on empathy and emotional resilience rather than psychopathy will enable people is the psychologically “normal” range to become even better, more understanding and compassionate educators, mentors, parents, siblings, and friends. Finally, this article focuses on how we must be able to understand the bad, in this case, fear, in order to know how to be good.

While there is a huge range of human emotion, recent studies have suggested that a fearful facial expression is a more salient elicitor of prosocial behavior than are other facial expressions, such as surprise or anger.

Marsh, Kozak, and Ambady (2007) conducted three studies to investigate the relationship between fear recognition and prosocial behavior.
In the first study, participants believed that the researchers were investigating typical reactions to radio broadcasts. The participants listened to an audiotape—a fictional creation of the research team—of a young woman named Katie describing her parents’ death and her struggles to care for her siblings. The researchers instructed one group of participants to empathize with the woman, while telling a control group to focus on technical aspects of the recording. Next, while having participants fill out questionnaires used to disguise the real intent of the study, the researchers handed out a letter from Katie describing her need for help, accompanied by pledge forms and envelopes.

Afterward, they gave the participants a test measuring their ability to identify emotions in photos of adult faces.
Not surprisingly, participants told to empathize with Katie donated more than those told to listen to the tape for technical accuracy. In addition, facial fear recognition skills played a powerful role in predicting their generosity. The accuracy with which participants recognized the fear expression significantly and positively predicted their donations of time and money.

In the second study, the researchers analyzed how participants’ fear recognition skills influenced their rating of people’s photos as attractive or unattractive if they thought the photographed subjects would be told about the ratings. This design created an opportunity for the participants to exhibit prosocial behavior by being kind to the people in the photos, eliminating a costly barrier of undergraduate participants not necessarily having much time or money. Another group of participants, who did not believe that the photographed people would hear their opinions, served as controls.

This study found that participants skilled at identifying facial fear (as well as sadness) responded the most kindly in the rating task. This was only true for participants for whom the task was framed as a prosocial one—who believed their judgments would be shown to the people being rated. In the control group, which did not think the researchers would share their opinions with the photo subjects, fear or sadness recognition skills played no role in the participants’ ratings. This could mean that there is nothing prosocial about rating someone as more attractive than they are if the people being rated are not told.

The third study duplicated Study 2, adding additional analyses to confirm that higher ratings of attractiveness stemmed from participants’ efforts to be kind. In this study, fear recognition again proved to be a strong predictor of prosocial behavior.

The results of the three studies maintain the hypothesis that the ability to recognize the fear facial expression predicts individual differences in prosocial behavior. This is consistent with studies involving psychopaths, because those studies suggest that individuals less prone to experiencing states associated with prosocial behavior (e.g., empathy, concern, and guilt) are less able to recognize distress cues such as the fear facial expression. Cleckley (1976) even defines psychopathy as a “lack of guilt or empathy.” More studies must be conducted to experimentally manipulate empathy, as was done in Marsh et al.’s Study 1, not merely manipulating whether or not the participant will get recognition as in their Studies two and three. Still, these researchers have lain fascinating ground for future studies of other-oriented positive emotions.

Marsh, Abigail A., Kozak, Megan N., Ambady, Nalini. (2007). Accurate identification of fear facial expressions predicts prosocial behavior. Emotion, 7, 239-51.

Millon, Theodore; Davis, Roger D. (1998). “Chapter 11: The Five-Factor Model of Personality, Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior. The Guilford Press: New York, NY. pp. 173-177.

I was fortunate to attend Ed Diener’s talk on Well Being and Public Policy hosted by the Claremont Graduate University’s school of Organizational and Behavioral Sciences. The talk was titled, “Happiness for Complete Wealth. Implications for Public Policy.” The over arching theme of his talk was the importance of measuring well being and using it as a measure of governmental effectiveness rather than focusing solely on Gross Domestic Product. He began his talk with this interesting quote from Robert Kennedy.

“Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product … if we should judge America by that – counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

“Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

Why should we measure well being? From the talk….

It’s Democratic – Everyone in the world has their pet projects and different things make different people happy. By measuring well being systematically with representative samples, we give equal voice to those who find mud wrestling makes them happy, rather than having public policy driven only by those who happen to have access to decision makers and what makes them happier.

It’s Useful for policy – There is considerable evidence on the negative effects of commuting such that a raise that allows people to buy a bigger house that necessitates a longer commute often has a negative impact on well being. The relationship between money and happiness is also well known and can be used to drive tax policy.

Happy people are productive people – In truth, there is not necessarily a tradeoff that only stupid people are happy (Flaubert’s error). Rather, reseaarch has shown that happy people have higher supervisor ratings, higher organizational citizenship (they help their co-workers), and earn higher income. The last finding is the result of a long term longiitudinal study by Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, and Sandvick (2002) where cheerfulness as an undergraduate was found to predict income 19 years later.

Happy people are healthier people – From his work with the CDC, he has run predictors of national life expectancy through regression analyses and found the following beta weights:

• .12-> GDP
• .01-> Health Expenditure
• .65-> Life Satisfaction

Apparently, life satisfaction shares the most unique variance with societal life expectancy.

Society CAN affect happiness – Representative samples of Danish and Togolese citizens have confirmed that almost all Danish people are happier than almost all Togolese citizens. Happiness is not just an individual phenomenon. Gallup world poll data has found that the best predictors of well being are:

• Money
• Being able to count on others
• Low corruption
• Low assault rates
• Feeling control over something
• Having learned something new recently
• Being able to use one’s talents

We currently focus government policy on some of these things without considering (or measuring) others.

He closed his talk with the following….Well Being is more than money. Obama is briefed daily about the economy using various measures…who measures well being? “Well being should be a policy imperative.”

BTW, Diener is planning on coming out with a book on Well Being and Public Policy in a few months.

Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta have found that when monkeys were given a choice of receiving a food reward, or receiving a food reward and also having another monkey receive food. When paired with relative or “friend” the monkeys primarily went for the “prosocial” choice,  but the monkeys weren’t so generous with strangers, choosing the “selfish” option instead.

Empathy increases in both humans and animals with social closeness, which is often explained by evolution. We help those most closely related to us, to make sure not just our own genes are passed on but that those genes of our family as passed on as well.

Still one may wonder whether giving is still a selfish to capuchins because they can eat together, or if the monkeys simply like to see the other monkey enjoying the food. In the study, eight adult female capuchins were given tokens to exchange for food. One token got them a slice of apple. The other also got an apple slice, plus a similar slice was given to another monkey they could see.

In a series of tests, when the “partner” monkey was a relative or a familiar female from the same social group, the one choosing the token moved closer to the partner and primarily choose the prosocial token that got them both food.

When the second monkey was a stranger, the selfish token was more likely to be chosen, often with the lead monkey turning her back to the stranger. Since the reward was the same for the monkey making the choice, de Waal suggested there must be some intangible benefit to the prosocial choice, perhaps an indication of empathy.

The study put in much effort to eliminate the possibility that the monkeys didn’t understand the task. They also made sure the monkey could always see the other monkey eat the food when they chose the “prosocial option.

Like we’ve found with humans, strict  Dawkinsian evolutionary theory, which asserts that people may seem to act altruistically but only do so if the benefit, is questioned here. If we believed in completely selfish behavior, might researchers find a difference between “prosocial” behaviors toward a friend and toward a relative? In this study, as with many altruism studies with humans, there was no such difference.

Empathy is important to understand for better communities, schools, and personal/professional relationships. Emapthic individuals are less likely to be anti-social and more likely to have strong social ties, better social skills, and more school and life success. There are many applications for increasing one’s empathy, such as teaching it in schools, teaching it to counselors and psychologists, and teaching it as an intervention for criminals and/or emotionally impaired (Autistic, Psychopathic) people. For instance, an important target for Learning by Teaching is to train students in empathy. They have to transmit new contents to the classmates, so that they reflect continuously on the mental processes of their classmates and teachers. This greatly enhances the social relationships of the students and learning that takes place in the classroom.

Regarding psychotherapy, there is an increasing demand to train psychologists to be more empathetic with their clients. In this context, empathy is exremely important for trust and optimal treatment.

Not only is empathy a vital skill in order to maximize social relationships, but empathy is also linked to happiness and general well-being. Martin Seligman originally hypothesized that unhappy people are likely to be more altruistic since they would be more likely to identify with the suffering of others. Findings of studies on mood and helping behaviors, however, showed that happy people are more likely to demonstrate altruism (Seligman, 2002). There is no evidence to show the direction of this relationship, so it very well may be that being altruistic causes happiness. Studies conducted by Isen, George, and Brief (1992) also showed that people are more willing to help others and engage in altruistic behaviors when they are happy. Hence, it can be proposed that altruism and happiness are reciprocal.

In short, happy people are altruistic and altruistic people are happy. We’ll just have to wait for a monkey-mood-measure to see if the same is true for our capuchin friends.