How of Happiness

Happiness and Television: What My Family Learned from "Chopped"

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:03:15 +0000

Reading Discretion Advised: This post contains minimal mention of scientific research.

A recent University of Maryland study found a whopping correlation between television watching and well-being: Happy people reported spending more than 30% less time watching TV per day than their less happy peers.

A case of confirming the obvious? I am not so sure.

Since 1985, I have mostly hated and disdained TV. I would tune in to the occasional show with my husband or friends, or make exceptions for special cases like the Oscars or coverage of 9-11. But otherwise, TV watching held painful associations for me - garnered as a teen-ager - with not having a life. One time in college, I read parts of my 9th grade diary out loud to my suite-mates, and we laughed hysterically over the fact that 95% of the entries were focused on some exciting plot twist on The Love Boat or the progress of my crush on Three's Company's John Ritter. (Where was mention of school or family or friends - the factors found to be most strongly associated with happiness?)

So, although I don't feel judgmental about other people enjoying TV - especially these days when it is said that TV writing is far superior to film - I rarely deign to watch myself.

So, imagine my husband's alarm on finding me squeezed between our two kids in front of our flat screen TV (the same one whose purchase I resisted adamantly) watching one cooking show after another. We were delaying dinner, procrastinating on homework, and even shorting sleep. We became obsessed with what Brian Boitano would make, who would be knighted on Iron Chef, which judge on Chopped could top the nasty comment made the week before, who would be ordered to pack their knives on Top Chef, and what local restaurants would be featured in The Best Thing I Ever Ate. (A couple of weeks ago, my husband brought the kids to LA's Grand Central Market for pupusas, then to Joan's on Third for coconut cupcakes, both featured on the show.)

Most days my husband was not happy with this development, and several noisy "debates" took place between my Food Network-possessed children and his desire for a timely and peaceful dinnertime. However, a funny thing happened on the way through the cooking show obsession. What we were seeing on the screen began trickling into our kitchen. The kids suddenly perked up during our weekly visits to the local farmers' market, insisting on checking out exotic fruits and vegetables and, even better, buying, preparing, and eating them. (On our last trip, one selected an Armenian cucumber resembling a snake and the other chose a purple tomato and lemon parsley.)

Therein were planted the seeds for the "Cooking Challenge" phase in our family life. Most nights, our children beg us to stage messy and elaborate food challenges - just like the ones featured on their favorite show Chopped. Once or twice a week, we humor them and select one or two "secret ingredients," which are revealed with as much fanfare as can be generated by lifting a dish towel from a bowl. Last night, the secret ingredients were fennel and pine nuts. Last week, we waged Battle Baguette and before that Battle Potato & Mozzarella Cheese, Battle Brown Sugar, and the unforgettable Battle Apple.

The kids then proceed to create a main dish (which, to our shock and occasional dismay, they actually eat for dinner) from those secret ingredients and random victuals in the pantry and fridge. They do 95% of the chopping and cooking themselves, though we are there to help or give pointers (e.g., pouring boiling water, demonstrating how to separate eggs, completing a protracted chopping task before digits are severed, etc.). After the dishes are finished and plated, we morph into judges, tasting and scoring for presentation (5 points), creativity (5 points), and taste (10 points).

The results - in all three categories - have been stunning. For Battle Baguette, my 10-year old Arpege (she insisted that I use her middle name -- that of a 3-star Parisian restaurant -- so her burgeoning interest in haute cuisine may have been predestined) made French onion soup with caramelized onions and fresh herbs; she then cut out an elliptical hole in the French baguette, poured the soup into it, and melted a piece of Havarti cheese on top. It was delicious. My 8-year old Alexander used the baguette to create a tasty grilled cheese sandwich, with two kinds of cheese, potatoes, grilled onions, and bacon. (Arpege won that round, but it was close.)

What are they learning? How do I count the ways? Fine motor skills from chopping garlic. Multi-tasking from sautéing vegetables in olive oil. (Case in point is their startling realization that you can't just leave a saucepan unattended; this skill requires the need to overcome any tendencies for ADD.) They've honed their organization and math skills, practiced quick thinking, and stretched to develop some original ideas. Our daily conversations are now vocabulary-enhanced, and sprinkled with terms like chimichurri, bok choy, chocolate mole, and poached peaches. And, best of all, my kids are actually eating and enjoying copious vegetables and a variety of other healthful and exotic foods.

Thank you television. Even without John Ritter, you have made me and my family happy and healthy.

What If I’d Never Met My Husband?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:57:58 +0000

I thought readers might be interested in this piece I wrote for Scientific American's "Mind Matters" column:

I met my husband, Peter, rather randomly, at all-the-Absolut-you-could-drink benefit for the Museum of Contemporary Art. We have often observed that had we not met that night, there is no particular reason to think we would have ever chanced on each other in the future, as we did not inhabit the same professional or social spheres. From time to time, I contemplate the fantastic possibility that had one of us ventured several footsteps to the right or the left that evening, my husband, my children and my home might be subtracted from the life I lead today. Counterintuitively, this counterfactual exercise in considering how much worse off I could be today brings me not distress, but pleasure. Then again, a series of elegant studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggest that my experience is not so counterintuitive after all.

The researchers show that people prompted to write about how a positive event may not have happened experience a greater uptick in mood than those prompted to describe the positive event. In their most persuasive study, individuals in committed relationships wrote for 15 to 20 minutes about how they might never have met and connected with their partners. Others wrote instead about the reverse - that is, how they did meet, start dating, and end up with their partners. Several control conditions, which involved writing about one's typical day or about one's friendships, were included as well. The biggest increase in satisfaction with the relationship occurred not in the group that pondered the sunny beginnings of their union but in the "mental subtraction" (or "How I might never have met Peter") group.

Why does "subtracting" a love, a triumph, or a dash of good fortune from our lives give us a bigger boost than simply savoring their reality? According to University of Virginia social psychologist Minkyung Koo and colleagues, the key mechanism is that thinking about how an event might never have come to pass renders it more mysterious and more surprising. Prior research has shown that surprise - and its cousins novelty, unexpectedness, variety, uncertainty, and unpredictability - is associated with more intense and more durable emotional reactions. In our own laboratories, Ken Sheldon and I have been testing the notion that surprise and variety can slow the rate at which people adapt to such life changes as buying a new condo or hybrid, marrying Mr. Right, or earning a coveted promotion. Any event or activity that yields novel and frequently surprising experiences and opportunities is likely to capture our attention and trigger frequent memories and thoughts about it. Surprises entice our attention and compel us to explain them, thereby maintaining the freshness, meaning, and pleasure of an experience. The intriguing hypothesis offered by Koo and her coauthors is that people can take active steps to elevate their moods by deliberately thinking about how an event is surprising.

An interesting twist is that people appear to be largely ignorant of this phenomenon. In the same paper, the researchers describe a separate set of individuals who were simply asked to imagine reflecting on how they met or might never have met their partners. These forecasters predicted that dwelling on how their relationship might not have been would dampen their spirits.

These findings lead us to a puzzle. Readers of both popular psychology and academic journals have undoubtedly taken notice of a growing literature on the benefits of gratitude - a body of work suggesting that "counting our blessings" (or reviewing the positive circumstances of our lives) makes us happier. Previous studies have shown that listing things for which we are thankful or writing a gratitude letter to a person who has made a difference produces increases in well-being and appears to neutralize negative emotions. Do Koo and colleagues' research findings contradict the common wisdom and empirical support for the happiness-boosting power of expressing gratitude? I don't believe they do. After all, how else do we strive to appreciate the good things in our lives - our health, our spouse, our garden, our 401k balances (if we're lucky to still have them) - if not by implicitly imagining what life would be like without them? To be grateful for our eyesight, we imagine what it would feel like to be blind; to appreciate our next-door colleague, we contemplate what our work days would be like if he resigned. So, without even realizing it, people may already be quite proficient at the strategy of mentally subtracting positive events.

This research might stimulate some intriguing future studies. For example, might the process of mental subtraction backfire in people who are generally less happy, more pessimistic, and more inclined to ruminate? In such individuals, considering the counterfactual of how they may never have met their partners might trigger associated negative thoughts about their lack of deservingness or self-doubts or memories about other relationships that never came to be. Another fertile area to explore is whether the key to the mood-benefits of mental subtraction is surprise at the origin of a particular life situation (e.g., considering the many roads in life that may have prevented me from obtaining my job, and how truly unexpected it is that I wound up there) or whether the key is simple awareness and appreciation of the fact that all in life is transient and the future is unknown (e.g., considering that the job I love may be taken away).

The philosopher William James has been credited with being the father of modern psychology. He is less well known for making a rather revolutionary proposition: "My experience," he wrote in 1890, "is what I agree to attend to." Indeed, what we direct our attention to is our experience; it makes up our life. Where is your attention wandering now? To the almost empty 401k or to the steady paycheck, to your husband's forgetfulness or to the many ways your life has been enriched since you met years ago? Instead of counting the ways that I love thee, Koo and colleagues suggest that I count the ways that I may have never had the chance.

Is There Anything To Be Happy About In Today's News?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Mon, 25 May 2009 01:34:58 +0000

Just when we thought it was a bit safer to sneak a look at the balance of our 401k plans, just when we were feeling a bit less edgy about the economy, we are hit with a budget crisis in California of alarming proportions, the rolls of the unemployed are increasing, and several other economic indicators do not look pretty.

Is there anything to be happy about in today’s news? As a scientist and an Obama supporter, these days I sometimes don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Every other news headline appears to send a contradictory message. One warns of the economy in free fall, sending jitters, another about the Obama administration recommitting to serious science or eradicating some nasty piece of legislation loitering from the last 8 years, prompting cheers.

I am particularly struck, however, by how tenaciously negative and pessimistic the media are. Of course, there have been a slew of bad news over the past 9 months, some even terrifying. But is it 100% bad? For every story of “there’s a 5% loss here” or “8% decline there,” there is no comparable information about the 95% or 92% that is still good or decent or the same.

In Southern California, where I live, for many years, the headlines were unremittingly downbeat about the toxic effects of our burgeoning economy on the environment – on pollution, on traffic, on overcrowding at schools. So, for example, a blitz of reports would predictably and regularly appear about increases in port traffic (which clog the freeways, cause respiratory illness, etc.). Not long ago, an article in the Los Angeles Times – a quite depressing piece – exclaimed, boo hoo, port traffic is now decreasing! And regaled readers with multiple reasons for why this was a dreadful turn.

The same point could be made regarding stories in the past bemoaning the fact that “there are too many airplanes in the air,” “too many vehicles on the road,” and “too many factories operating.” Now, the reverse has become terrible news – airlines have reduced the number of flights, car dealerships are shuttering, factories are closing. Change in either direction, of course, is framed by the media as bad news. Bad news sells.

For years, reporters and talking heads and psychologists and columnists bemoaned that people were working too much and spending too little time with family and friends. How there was no life balance.

Now there are stories about people’s hours being cut and California workers being furloughed, which means having more time with family and friends. Which is frightful.

What’s more, the media’s negativity must be highly effective, at least judged by a taxi driver in Sydney asking me the other day “Have all the shops in Los Angeles closed?”…Uh, no, all the shops in Los Angeles have not closed.

In 2008 B. R. (“before recession”), there was a lot of hand-wringing about how people spend too much and how the U.S. has the lowest saving rate of any first-world country, at times dipping into negative territory. (Recall JibJab’s brilliant riff on the average Joe shopping at Big Box Mart for gobs of useless junk – to the tune of Jingle Bells, “Big Box Mart is the place I go to buy all of my crap” – until his house is so full of stuff the roof explodes.) Now there are stories about how awful it is that people are spending less, have fewer “things” at home, and are saving more. Horror.

Consider this:

Less stuff means less trash.
Less stuff means more simple time with friends and family.
Less stuff means a smaller carbon footprint.
Fewer real estate developments means less traffic, less pollution, and fewer animal species threatened by extinction.
Less expensive homes mean the middle class and others (such as artists) can now buy into previously unaffordable communities.
Lower stock prices mean terrorist organizations like Al Queda have less cash.

I understand that there is real suffering and hardship, and this must be reported. I understand that the crisis in the banking system, in the credit markets, and with investor and consumer confidence is very, very serious. We are in an economic decline whose effects may be both long and profound, and we don’t even know how long and how profound. These problems must be faced head on, and members of our young administration are pretty clearly spending lots of all-nighters working on it.

I realize that all the negative slices of news are interpreted as threats, because they are symptoms of a larger ailment.

But is there an optimistic positive angle that is missing?

A recent article in New York Magazine reported that, as unemployment has grown in New York city, death and violent crime has dropped. As unemployment has increased, so has volunteering.

My and my colleagues’ research suggests that investing in relationships, savoring the present moment, appreciating what you have, and doing kindness for others are the true keys to happiness. Having trouble getting started? Pick up a brand new iPhone app (Live Happy), based on this research. The app will prompt you to assess your well-being, help you identify the strategies that fit you best (whether it’s savoring a photo in your album or texting a gratitude note to a friend), and prompt you to engage in them on a regular basis by using your phone.

And maybe you'll gain a fresh, more upbeat perspective on the news.

When Everyone Loses

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:50:01 +0000

The New York Times published an op-ed piece of mine titled "Why We're Still Happy" (Dec 27, 2008). Because it was cut substantially, I thought I'd post the original here:

***

These days, bad news about the economy practically wafts from newspapers and LCD screens. It’s all you can do not to sink into panic or all-out despair.

So, after perusing the latest analysis of yet another crisis symptomatic of the collapse of our economy, another alarming set of news (usually in large bold type) that portends the coming of the second Great Depression, you look up from your reading expecting that the world has drastically changed since you’ve last taken it all in.

But, for most of us, it hasn’t. Gaze out your window. And around your neighborhood, movie house, or grocery. Listen in on conversations among coworkers, coffee drinkers, and fellow moms and dads at school. Most of you will notice few signs that anything is horribly awry.

Ask your friends to keep track of their moods and thoughts at random times throughout the day. You’ll find that, all in all, they are not spending their days dejected about the economy. Instead, they are mostly preoccupied with the quotidian tasks and concerns of life. Traffic, dinner, homework, deadlines, sharp words, and flirtatious glances.

How can people remain relatively normal, or even happy and upbeat, at the same time that they drown in the bad news?

Because the news affects everyone, not just you.

Research in psychology and economics suggests that when only your salary is cut, you make a foolish investment, or you lose your job, you become considerably less satisfied with your life. But when everyone becomes worse off, your life satisfaction remains pretty much the same.

Indeed, human beings are remarkably attuned to relative position and status. As a famous decade-old study had revealed, people prefer to live in a world in which they receive an annual salary of $50K (when others are pulling in $25K) than an annual salary of $100K (when others are making $200K). Along similar lines, researchers in the UK have demonstrated that we will readily give up our own cash to destroy others’ earnings. To some, such findings show up the dark side of human nature, but to me, they reveal an all-too-human truth. We care more about social comparison, about status, about rank, and about so-called positional goods than about the absolute value of our bank accounts or reputations.

For example, Andrew Clark has shown that being laid off hurts less if you reside in a community with a high unemployment rate, being overweight stings less if you live in a country full of the super-sized, and even being married to an unhealthy or plump spouse makes it easier to cope with your own health or weight problem. Shockingly, if you are unemployed, you will, on average, be happier if you spouse is also unemployed than if he or she is working.

So, knowing that everyone’s 401K plan, home value, and ability to obtain credit has declined surely dulls the pain.

After a spirited race, the Dodo bird in Alice in Wonderland announces, “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” In today’s economy, everyone loses, and all bear (a reduced) price.

E is for Economy. D is for Downsizing. And S is for Smelling the Roses.

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:58:58 +0000

The typical home in the US today is double the size of what it was in 1940, with two or more baths and a mean of two rooms per person (!), but the average individual isn't any happier. Does a couple or small family really need to live in a four-bedroom home with a pool to have a satisfying life?

“He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.”
– Socrates

A caveat before I even start: This post is not directed at individuals for whom the global economic crisis has made it difficult to make ends meet or who have suddenly lost the resources to satisfy basic needs for food, medical care, safety, and shelter.

This post is for those of us who are doing OK (or even well), but are still terribly stressed about the size of our 401K plans, home values, and ability to obtain credit.

I wish to make the (perhaps unpopular) argument that losing some of the luxuries and the non-necessities to which we have become accustomed may have its benefits and upsides. The research evidence is now almost indisputable that human beings are terrific “hedonic adapters,” especially when it comes to positive changes in their lives. We really, really want that bigger TV, more comfortable car, larger home, and deeper savings account, and we feel really happy when we attain those things. But that burst of happiness doesn’t last long. Or, to be more accurate, those new monies and possessions don’t make us as happy or for as long as we think they will.

The typical home in the US today is double the size of what it was in 1940, with two or more baths and a mean of two rooms per person (!), but the average individual isn't any happier. Does a couple or small family really need to live in a four-bedroom home with a pool to have a satisfying life? I may have been born in communist Soviet Union, but I certainly don’t deny that we are all free to pursue whatever individual or private material desires that we wish. I only caution that such pursuit is not actually so individual or private when it has ramifications for our neighbors, environment, economy, and society at large. If you bought a house you couldn’t afford, you contributed, however slightly, to the economic crisis surrounding mortgage-backed securities. (And how many of us have been informed by a [respectable] mortgage company that, according to their “formula,” we supposedly can afford a loan of a certain size, and then been presented with a number that is astoundingly overestimated? How many of us, after that realization, turned that mortgage down?)

To return to the power of hedonic adaptation, that four-bedroom house will not contribute much to the happiness of someone who upgraded from a three-bedroom one. Unfortunately, adaptation to the reverse circumstantial change (i.e., downgrading from big to smaller) is more difficult and typically takes longer. Yet researchers have shown that people are remarkably resilient and usually are able to get used to, accept, and even be happy with less. (Again, this is true as long as the downsizing does not drive us into an unsafe neighborhood with poor schools and lack of basic services and transportation, or the loss of income or employment does not push us into an unpleasant and stressful work situation or disruption of important social networks.)

However, not only can we resign ourselves to having less, but living a simpler life in a smaller abode, in closer proximity to our family members, may help us to stop and smell the roses. Researchers have shown that positive experiences are more happiness-inducing and longer-lasting than possessions. So, spend more free time with your family and friends – taking walks, reading poetry out loud, truly savoring the architecture or natural scenery around you, rather than speeding by it on your way to purchase the next item on your wish list. Reappreciate the joys of taking out books from the library, listening to the radio, cooking instead of dining out, playing Trivial Pursuit, or watching Monday Night Football or Saturday Night Live on a small TV.

I’ve done the latter and it’s really not that bad.

Can You Be Too Happy-Go-Lucky?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:29:37 +0000

I was recently invited to a screening of a film about happiness. The film is called Happy Go Lucky (to be released in LA and NYC on Oct 10 and more widely 1-2 weeks later) and the director is Mike Leigh. (In case some readers don't know him, Leigh has made some wonderful films in the UK, including Vera Drake and Secrets & Lies.)

I’m no movie critic, but I can say this: Happy Go Lucky was really intriguing. At first, you imagine you might hate it, but then it grows on you. It's about a woman – played to great effect by Sally Hawkins – who seems like she's way too happy. She’s relentlessly upbeat. She sees everything and explains everyday events in a positive, optimistic, and charitable way. (This gets downright dangerous sometimes, when she approaches and empathizes with a mentally ill homeless man, who may be violent.) And she appears invulnerable to nasty people, a characteristic that serves well as fodder for some terrific and nerve-wracking scenes with her driving instructor.

Initially, I was convinced that the central character is just nuts (excuse the non-technical term) and totally dysfunctional, but then I realized that I may have been wrong all along. The movie really made me think – in fact, so much that I couldn’t get it out of my head.

One of the questions that Happy Go Lucky brought to mind is whether people can indeed be excessively happy, dysfunctionally happy.

Psychologists argue that many, if not all, human traits have optimal levels. With regard to the trait of happiness, studies show that people who report themselves as happy at age 18 will obtain more years of education and earn higher incomes in their 30s than will their less happy 18-year-old peers, but that those who score above the 90th percentile in happiness will actually do somewhat worse. Interestingly, however, the pitfalls of being “too happy” are not observed in the domain of social relationships. It has been known for a long time that happier people are more likely to get married, to have fulfilling relationships, to boast more friends, and to have higher-quality social support. But if you rate yourself a 10 on a 10-point scale of happiness, you are still slightly better off in your romantic and social life than someone who is happy but not super-happy. So, once a person is already moderately happy, becoming even happier may have costs in some domains, but not in others.

So, where does that leave our heroine of Happy Go Lucky? You’ll have to see the movie to find out.

How To Remain Happy When the Financial World Crumbles

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:21:42 +0000

I’ve had a lot to worry about lately. On my personal list: Watching my mutual funds melt down, the increasing hassle (not to mention price) of my commute, my child’s weep downs, how to super-rush a visa to Brazil amid interestingly-timed “technical difficulties” at the Consulate, and (don’t even let me go there) Sarah Palin.

Sometimes I think our country has gone nuts. We have collapsing financial markets, unprecedented housing foreclosures, $4 gas, and an emperor without any clothes on perambulating in the of an incredibly critical presidential election. But despite everything, many people (myself included) have a remarkable capacity to maintain optimism and confidence and even some cheer – about ourselves and the world around us.

The label for the process by which we manage to survive – and even thrive – in the face of stress, trauma, and adversity is coping. It’s how we assuage the hurt, anxiety, or suffering caused by a negative event. There’s a massive – and I mean massive – literature in psychology on coping, but I will tell you about my two favorite findings regarding successful coping.

First, successful coping involves construing some kind of benefit in the ordeal or trauma.

I know that might sound trivializing, but researchers have found that the most well-adjusted people are able to perceive some value or gain (a silver lining, if you will) in the loss or negative life event – for example, a change in life perspective, a feeling that their life has greater worth, or a sense of personal growth.

For example, a professor I know lost his dearest friend and closest collaborator, a brilliant scientist, abruptly and cruelly, to cancer, cutting short a 27-year-long magical partnership. “I am the luckiest man I know, “ he said at a dinner honoring his friend, “I wish on each of you the marvelous collaboration that I had.”

A classic study by UCLA Professor Shelley Taylor found that women coping with breast cancer have amazing strength. When interviewed, many of these women spoke of their illness as a wake-up call – something that galvanized them to reorder their priorities and to recognize what was truly important in life (a common insight was family over work), of deciding to devote more time to their closest relationships and to spend less time on things like housework.

Some people who have experienced hardships and losses claim that their relationships have benefited – that their friendships and intimate partnerships are more profound, significant, and meaningful after the trauma than before. Still others, researchers find, assert that they have grown enormously in the wake of their traumatic experience, discovering a maturity and strength of character that they didn’t know they possessed. And many experience a newfound appreciation of the preciousness and goodness of life. For example, a survivor of a harrowing plane crash described her experience afterward: “When I got home, the sky was brighter. I paid attention to the texture of sidewalks. It was like being in a movie.”

Second, successful coping fosters personal growth and even transformation.

Researchers have also accumulated evidence supporting Friedrich Nietzsche’s familiar exhortation, “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” It turns out that the experience of pain, loss, and trauma can make us stronger or, at least, lead us to believe that we are stronger and more resourceful than we had thought.

Some psychologists argue that finding benefit in a trauma represents a true personal transformation. When you consider it, a major loss can launch a person into new roles and novel situations. A new widow, who has always conceived of herself as a “wife” and has been greatly dependent on her husband – financially, emotionally, and socially – may be abruptly catapulted to learn numerous assorted skills. She may be startled to find herself rising to the occasion and accomplishing things that she never judged herself capable of doing: selling her house, playing ball with her son, calculating her taxes, or attending a party all by herself, This can certainly lead to new self-views, enhanced self-esteem, and possibly even growth.

Indeed, trauma survivors often report transformative experiences. Some gain renewed confidence in their ability to endure and prevail. Others experience improved relationships – for example, discovering who their true friends are and whom they can really count on. Others still begin to feel more comfortable with intimacy and acquire a heightened sense of compassion for others who suffer. Finally, others seem to develop a deeper, more sophisticated, and more satisfying philosophy of life.

And here is where I get to bring up my favorite figure of all time. As you will see, it illustrates three potential paths that we can take in the face of a major challenge: A) survival, B) recovery, or C) thriving. Survival essentially translates to a permanent impairment of functioning. This path (see Path A line below) shows a person who is merely surviving following a trauma, someone who may have lost much happiness and desire to enjoy love, work, or play. Recovery (Path B) describes a person who suffers in the aftermath of a trauma, perhaps losing the capacity to work productively or have satisfying relationships for a period of time, but who eventually returns to his original state. Finally, thriving (Path C) involves someone who also suffers in the immediate aftermath but who ultimately not only returns to her original state but rises above it! This person has experienced a transformation.

How can we thrive – let alone recover or survive – in the face of the severe hardships and stresses that life not infrequently throws us? How do we remain upbeat in the face of gloomy television news night after night? It is not easy. For some people and in some situations, it may not even be possible. But for most of us, it’s within reach.

Can Anything in Life Ever Surpass Winning 14 Gold Medals?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:26:53 +0000

As I was watching Michael Phelps receive his 14th gold medal – what a week! – this is what I was thinking: “How could anything in this 23-year old swimmer’s life ever top this?” And: “After he comes down from the high, will he ultimately end up less happy than the rest of us mere mortals?”

This may be a downer question, but it’s not a glib one. Research suggests that an extremely positive event (or “peak experience”) can skew our distribution of life events in such a way that makes everything that follows it pale by comparison. A friend of mine had such a tremendously positive experience once (I won’t say what it was but it didn’t involve drugs) that for many weeks afterwards, everything else that he usually really enjoyed (eating sushi, playing frisbee with friends, watching Monday night football) just didn’t seem so great anymore. He eventually got over it and reverted back to his old self, but what if he had been labeled the greatest Olympic athlete of all time? Could one derive the same pleasure in the nightly news or eating crackers or taking a walk around the neighborhood after that?

In my own research, I have recently become intrigued with the process of how people react to and adapt to positive experiences. The sad conclusion, according to every study that I’ve read, is that human beings adapt to all things positive! We move into a spanking mansion, we win accolades and awards, we meet a handsome stranger, we get wrinkle-smoothing plastic surgery, and it feels terrific for a while. A happiness boost for sure. And then, over time – sometimes slowly, sometimes very rapidly – we return to our original level of well-being.

But the problem is that really, really positive experiences raise the bar for all subsequent experiences. They set a new standard of comparison. After you dine at the French Laundry, every subsequent meal is not as good. After you win the lottery, according to a University of Michigan study, little ordinary, mundane good things in your life, like having lunch with a friend or receiving a gift, don’t carry the same cachet. After you sleep with the person of your dreams…you get the idea.

But all is not hopeless for Michael. My research shows that people can actively and effortfully try to combat the effects of adaptation to life’s joys and triumphs. We can set and pursue intrinsic and meaningful new goals (as I’m sure he’ll now do). We can open ourselves up to novel opportunities and surprises in our lives. We can try to savor and appreciate what we have (polish those medals, relish our good health) rather than lament what is lost.

Peak experiences are great, but it’s the accumulation of mildly positive events that produce lasting happiness.

Happiness Breeds Success…and Money!

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:52:52 +0000

I had a rather interesting experience this week appearing on the CNBC show, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch. The theme was that being happy will bring you cash. Over the top? Absolutely. Ridiculously enthusiastic and fakely combative? Definitely. The people were all very nice though, and I had fun (even after the first segment, when the executive producer told everyone they were doing “a great job,” but then pulled me aside and ordered me “to amp it up”).

So, does happiness deliver dollar bills? Well, actually, the evidence suggests it does.

I’ll explain how, but allow me first to backtrack for a moment.

As an experimental social psychologist who has been studying happiness for almost 20 years, I’m often asked, “What makes people happy?” Until a few years ago, my answer always reflected the common wisdom and empirical findings in my field – “It’s relationships, stupid.” That is, I always responded that our interpersonal ties – the strength of our friendships, familial bonds, and intimate connections – show the highest correlations with well-being.

Imagine my surprise then, after Ed Diener, Laura King, and I conducted a meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) of 225 studies of well-being. I wholly expected to discover that social relationships – more than any other variable – would be both causes and consequences of being happy. However, what I observed was something rather different. One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work.

The evidence, for example, demonstrates that people who have jobs distinguished by autonomy, meaning and variety – and who show superior performance, creativity, and productivity – are significantly happier than those who don’t. Supervisors are happier than those lower on the totem pole, and leaders who receive high ratings from their customers are happier than those with poor ratings. And, of course, the income that a job provides is also associated with happiness, though we now all know that money has more of an impact when we have less of it.

Why does our work make us happy? Because it provides us a sense of identity, structure to our days, and important and meaningful life goals to pursue. Perhaps even more important, it furnishes us with close colleagues, friends and even marriage partners.

The story doesn’t end there, however. Studies reveal that the causal direction between happiness and work runs both ways. Not only do creativity and productivity at the office make people happy, but happier people have been found to be more creative and productive. They are better “organizational citizens” (going above and beyond their job duties), better negotiators, and are less likely to take sick days, to quit, or to suffer burnout.

The most persuasive data regarding the effects of happiness on positive work outcomes (as opposed to vice versa) come from longitudinal studies – that is, investigations that track the same participants over a long period of time. These studies are great. For example, people who report that they are happy at age 18 achieve greater financial independence, higher occupational attainment and greater work autonomy by age 26. Furthermore, the happier a person is, the more likely she will get a job offer, keep her job, and get a new job if she ever loses it. Finally, one fascinating study showed that people who express more positive emotions on the job receive more favorable evaluations from their supervisors 3.5 years later.

But the point that really interested Donny Deutsch and his producers is that all of this applies to income. Not only does greater wealth make people (somewhat) happy, but happy people appear more likely to accrue greater wealth in life. For example, research has demonstrated that the happier a person is at one point in his life, the higher income he will earn at a later point. In one of my favorite studies, researchers showed that those who were happy as college freshmen had higher salaries 16 years later, when they were about 37!

But before we find yet another reason to be envious of very happy people (not only do they get to feel great, but they get to have good jobs and make more money as well!), consider what the research on happiness and work suggests. It suggests that, when it comes to work life, we can create our own so-called “upward spirals.” The more successful we are at our jobs, the higher income we make, and the better work environment we have, the happier we will be. This increased happiness will foster greater success, more money, and an improved work environment, which will further enhance happiness, and so on and so on and so on.

If you want to learn more about the psychology of happiness and how people can become happier, I’m teaching a “master class” (via phone) on 7 Thursdays (1pm-2pm EST) starting July 24, 2008 (with a break in August).

Happiness and Religion, Happiness as Religion

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:45:24 +0000

I begin with a bit of self-disclosure. I don’t have a religious or spiritual bone in my body. (Yes, maybe even less than Richard Dawkins.) But this doesn’t mean that I’m not open-minded about research on happiness and religion. As I write in my book, The How of Happiness, just because (most) religious beliefs cannot be empirically tested or falsified doesn’t mean that the consequences of having religious faith, participating in religious life, or searching for the sacred cannot be studied. Indeed, a growing body of psychological science is suggesting that religious folks are happier, healthier, and recover better after traumas than nonreligious ones.

Consider just two examples:

• If you are having serious cardiac surgery and receive strength and comfort from your religious faith, you’ll be almost 3 times more likely to be alive 6 months later.
• 47 percent of people who report attending religious services several times a week describe themselves as “very happy,” versus 28 percent of those who attend less than once a month.

The trouble is that researchers don’t really know why.

The social support and sense of identity provided by belonging to a close-knit church, temple, or mosque could be the operative mechanisms. After all, religion is usually not practiced in isolation but within a “fellowship of kindred spirits,” who share one another’s burdens, reach out to those in need, and offer friendship and companionship. Indeed, people who attend religious services on a regular basis have larger social networks – that is, more friends and acquaintances on whom they can and do rely.

Second, a person’s relationship with God can clearly be a source of comfort in troubled times, as well as a foundation for self-esteem, feeling unconditionally valued, loved, and cared for. Those who feel this way have an amazing sense of security. Their belief that God will intervene when needed gives them a sense of peace and calm, and their identification with particular biblical figures can help them interpret and guide their lives (e.g., “How should I act at this juncture?”).

Third, a sense that God has a purpose in everything helps religious people find meaning in ordinary life events, as well as in traumatic ones. A health crisis or a death in the family – especially one that is unexpected or premature – may not have a clear secular explanation and can severely challenge our basic assumptions about the fairness and justice of the world. Religion and faith can help people understand that the event is part of a broader divine plan or that it offers an opportunity for spiritual growth or that they have the ability to handle things. The sense of meaning that people derive from their religion can provide hope, a satisfying explanation via a broader, benign purpose, and, of course, solace.

Last but not least, religion and spirituality undoubtedly help people find meaning in life. Most people need to feel that they matter, that their suffering and hard work aren’t futile, and that their lives have a purpose. They need to feel a sense of control over their fates. They need to be able to justify and defend their actions – why they should forgive, what they have to be grateful for, why they should turn the other cheek, and so on. They need a reason to focus beyond just themselves.

So, I’ve been thinking recently about these questions – about why religion and spirituality have such great benefits for many people – and it got me wondering about what it must be like to go to religious services once a week. For all the reasons described above, I must assume that the regular ritual (whether it’s every Sunday morning or Friday night or some such) must provide people with…

• social and emotional support from other members
• affirmation of their identities, values, and lifestyle
• reinforcement of their meaning in life (e.g., “We are more than just a momentary blip in the universe”)
• comfort in the face of hard times
• distraction from stresses and hassles
• compassion for those less fortunate
• inspiration, awe, and hope (e.g., “I can do this,” “I’m stirred to go help someone today or forgive my enemy or save the planet.”
• a sense of control and strength to cope with challenges
• and likely much more.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? So that made me think: Can’t those individuals who don’t believe in God or who don’t want to be affiliated with any formal religious institution do something like this once a week? Can’t they get together with like-minded folks and perhaps listen to a talk (as opposed to a sermon) about well-being or human strengths or an inspiring story? Surely, the good stuff on the list above could be obtained through secular means.

Perhaps it would be a bit like attending a “happiness workshop” once a week, and departing feeling inspired and comforted and supported. That sounds cheesy, I know, but I think there’s something to it.

***And now I hope you'll forgive some shameless self-promotion: If you want to learn more about the psychology of happiness and how people can become happier, I’m teaching a “master class” (via phone) on seven Thursdays (1pm EST) in July and September, 2008. Small but important caveat: I hope you’ll feel inspired, comforted, and supported, but I’m a scientist/teacher, not a preacher!