Controversial Topics: Is Happiness Relative?

The Happiness Debate:

“If you want to be happy, be.”

-Leo Tolstoy

The definition for happiness is and always will be, quite fickle, because it means something different to everyone. To many, being happy is arriving at a feeling that one’s needs are being met. Susan Krause Whitbourne takes a stab at this in her definition of the emotion of happiness within the larger context of psychological well-being. Whitbourne articulates that studies should also take into account feelings of unhappiness, along with life satisfaction and fulfillment. She notes that psychologists differentiate between “life satisfaction” and “subjective well-being,” measuring both people’s assessments of their attitudes and feelings about their lives at a certain point of time and their actual feelings of happiness at particular moment. In the field

of psychology, debates are often about how to define happiness often center on the classic question of heredity versus environment.
Scholars consistently quarrel as to whether an individual’s happiness results from pre-determined genetic factors, or if a person can change his or her happiness level, much like the debate we had in discussion this week. Some researchers emphasize genetic set-points to which people always return regardless of temporary increases and decreases in the base level. Experts who challenge this view insist that, by taking conscious actions to change the circumstances of their lives, human beings can significantly increase their happiness levels on a long-term basis. Personally, I see the truth in both sides. Certainly, parents pass traits to their offspring that determine; in part, happiness levels, yet the environment also plays a major factor in determining happiness. Every single second, by taking actions, humans modify their surroundings, circumstances, and attitudes, thereby increasing their happiness. For me, it is important to believe that I am the determining factor as to whether or not I am happy; this gives me a sense of accountability and purpose in my life. I choose happiness.
Some scholars firmly stand behind the idea that an individual’s happiness level cannot be fundamentally changed—it can only increase or decrease for short periods of time. As Jonathan Haidt insists, “In the long run, it doesn’t matter what happens to you. Good fortune or bad, you will always return to your happiness set-point—your brain’s default level of happiness—which was determined largely by your genes” (86). Haidt’s assertion stems from Brickman and Campbell’s 1971 essay "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society,” in which they introduce the idea of the hedonic treadmill; the hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes.). From the perspective of these scholars, it might seem that humans are born with a set happiness level that nothing can permanently alter.
Some scholars have taken a completely unique approach in their study of happiness, contending that happiness is not the feeling or emotion itself, but rather is the result of the actions people take. I personally stand being this idea. Ben C. Fletcher argues that the everyday habits of happy people differ from those of unhappy people. He maintains, “If you want to be happier you have to do something different—you have to do new things.” To support this claim, Fletcher references a 2005 study by the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which looked to see if taking actions affected happiness, or as they phrased it “How can we become lastingly happier?” (Seligman et al. 419). The study measured happiness and depression levels of people who abandon old habits and begin to act differently. Researchers split more than 400 people into two groups: the do something different group and the old ways group. After being instructed to either change their ways or remain the same, the levels of each group were then measured for one week, one month, three months, and six months. Results found that the do something different group had greater levels of happiness at all four measurement periods (citation). If these experts are right, then consciously taking action to live one’s life differently can make a person happier.
So…is happiness determined by heredity or environment? Whitbourne looks at “the paradox of well-being,” the long-known finding that “older people express higher levels of subjective well-being than despite the fact that, objectively, their life circumstances are less positive than those of younger, but often unhappier, people.” Her observations support the heredity argument. That being said, Whitbourne does not consider environmental factors. The older adults who survived might also have, throughout their lives, taken conscious actions to modify their circumstances and environments, actions which have made them feel happier. In psychology, as in every field of physical and social science, the debate around heredity and environment always comes to the point where the answer is both. Someone who is born with a lower set-point happiness level can purposefully take many actions and achieve a higher overall happiness level than someone else born with a higher set-point happiness level but who take few actions to change his or her situation. In other words, our capacity happiness is not carved in stone. We can be the architects of our destinies.

Works Cited
Brickman, Philip, Dan Coates, and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman.

“Lottery Winners and Accident

Victims: Is Happiness Relative?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36.8

(1978): 917-927.

Fletcher, Ben C. “Happiness Is Not a Feeling—It Is Doing.’ Psychology Today. Sussex

Publishers, 15 Feb. 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. New

York: Basic Books, 2006.

Lyubomirsky, Sonja. The How of Happiness: A New Approach to Getting the Life You Want.

New York: Viking/Penguin, 2008.

"Posts Tagged ‘Martin Seligman’." Why We Reason. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.

Seligman, Martin E. P., Tracy A. Steen, Nansook Park, and Christopher Peterson. “Positive

Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions.” American Psychology 60.5 (July-Aug. 2005): 410-421.

Taylor, Paul, Rich Morin, Kim Parker, D’Vera Cohn, and Wendy Wang. “Growing Old in

America: Expectations Versus Reality.” Pew Social Trends. Pew Research Center, 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.

Whitbourne, Susan. “How Should Psychology Define Happiness?” Psychology Today. Sussex

Publishers, 3 May 2014. Web. 25 Nov.

2014.