DP 3 | Determining happiness factors not so easy after all

To recap what i have explained about Easterlin Paradox previously, we concluded that comparing happiness accross the world is possible and meaningful when questioning about three key factors contributing one´s happiness level: material level, family circumstances and health. We achieved this stage in Easterlin´s effort to prove that in international comparisons, the average reported level of happiness is not related to national income per person. Easterlin´s premises are:

1)    Within a society, rich people tend to be much happier than poor people.

2)    But, rich societies tend not to be happier than poor societies (or not that much).

3)    As countries get richer, they do not get happier.

Once it is accepted that comparing the abovementioned happiness factors across countries is possible, Easterlin´s paper starts discussing the relation between the three circumstances (material living level, family and health) and happiness.

The data shown has been mostly results of survey data that show how life events affect well-being, as people progress through the adult life cycle, from phases like early adulthood through middle age to their retirement.

After reading some studies, I found out that (generally speaking) paralel to these happiness factors,  individual´s overall happiness depends 50% on genetics set point, 40% on intentional activities (full under one´s control) and 10% on external circumstances (out of our power).

When talking about happiness surveys it is important to know that after decades of research, happiness is mostly under the individual´s control and what has been revealed as well is that when we are referring to happiness researches we are meaning a 10% of impact in happiness coming from external factors such as family circumstances, material level and health. This small impact of external circumstances is due to “hedonic adaptation”, which basically means that when our circumstances change, for good or bad, we quickly adjust to the new life circumstances. This means that any increase in happiness level coming from outside is temporary, as well as it happens with unhappiness when bad things occur.

So from my point of view when Easterlin is talking indifferently about the concept of “happiness” and “life satisfaction” he is moving away from the approach to happiness measures. Easterlin´s three factors (out of the individual´s control) are referred more to life satisfaction than to happiness. As this last one, as we have seen, is basically subjective and inherited from out parents.

It is understandable that Easterlin bases his discussion on common factors answered by contrasting countries in intensive surveys, to take these ones as guidestones for his research and to prove that comparing happiness among counties is possible. But this is due to the factor that interviewees are not aware of those “psychologic factors” which contribute to their own happiness. So we are finally talking about comparing life satisfaction which is definitely not the same as comparing hapiness states.

I am not moving from Easterlin´s position which casts aspersions on traditional economic theories to measure development, but I am meaning that the term Happiness Economics, from where GNH (Gross National Happiness) comes from, are far from what the concept of “Happiness” means for psychology.

Moving back to Easterlin´s theory, once it is accepted that comparing “life satisfaction”  factors across countries is possible, the author starts discussing the relation between the three circumstances (material living level, family and health) and happiness. The data shown has been mostly results of survey data that show how life events affect well-being as people progress through the adult life cycle, from phases like early adulthood through middle age to their retirement.

One if his criticisms to conventional happiness researches is that most of the general studies on subjective well-being are based on a point-of-time instead of the life cycle of individuals. Even those studies which try to follow particular individuals over time, the period tracked is normally one or two years.

I totally agree with the fact that a complete life course is key to take into account in life satisfaction level surveys as  each stage in life means different circumstances which affects to happiness as we have explained, temporarily.

The findings he obtained by making relations between the three factors and happiness are referred to money, marriage and health. Some if his conclusions were:

About happiness and health, the results show that adaptation to disability occurs and thus possible return to individual happiness setpoint. However, data and information gathered do suggest that even when this adaptation occurs, there is on average a lasting negative effect on the happiness level of the serious disabled ones.

Referred to happiness and marriage (as family circumstance), the author believes that adaptation with regard to marital status is less than complete, and that the formation of unions (marriage) has a lasting positive effect on happiness, while dissolution (widowhood, divorce) has a permanently negative effect. Once again what he means is not that adaptation does not occur after unions or separations, but the adaptation which occurs is not 100 percent.

When talking about happiness and money (material standard), interestingly the point-of-time results confirm the economic theory assumption that more money makes you happier, while Easterlin´s life cycle survey results contradicts it. As we move through the life cycle, we increasingly compare ourselves with those surrounding us, with whom we come in closest contact and those contacts which are generally of similar income.

To conclude Easterlin´s paper, over the life cycle, family and health circumstances  typically have long lasting effects on happiness, however having more money doesn´t.

At this point, one we have deepen on this relations, we can believe that the above circumstances studied by Easterlin are not only external circumstances (10% of our happiness), but also can mean intentional activities (40%).

So now it can be discussed how intentional activities can be fulfilled in certain countries better than in others. For example depending on a society´s believes or culture the formation of unions such as marriage can be regarded in different ways (as gender dependance or greater life satisfaction). In addition depending on how much a society or culture strives for material level its individuals will find equilibrium or the opposite (i.e. for Buddhism the desire for material goods is root of suffering).Finally coming back to Buddhism, this suggests spiritual guidance to ensure long-lasting health and overcome illness.

For your interest here I add Easterlin´s Economics of Happiness approach.

17 comentarios / 07 Jan 2012 por Tatiana Casquero Rodriguez
Uncategorized /

Comentarios cerrados.