Positive Psychology Approach Towards Making People Happier

Introduction

Most people think that happiness is due to situations that include things we want, such as being married, having a high income, or being in a culture that supports you. However, these factors do not necessarily determine whether someone is happy or well-adjusted. Understanding the deeper psychological factors behind happiness is crucial for developing a more fulfilling life.

The Role of Thought Processes in Happiness

The difference between happy and unhappy people lies in their thought processes. Each person’s thoughts, moods, feelings, behaviors, and motivation significantly determine their well-being. Many people experience similar situations, but how they interpret and think about them reveals the type of person they are. Happy people tend not to focus on negative things and do not let feedback affect their mood and self-confidence. In contrast, unhappy people often exhibit lower self-esteem, are sensitive to feedback, critical of their performance, and are concerned about comparisons to others (Lyubomirsky, 2007).

Decision-Making Strategies

In decision-making, happy individuals tend to remain content by employing multiple adaptive strategies when faced with difficult choices. They use the "satisficing" method to manage their circumstances. Conversely, unhappy individuals focus on potential negative aspects of all possible decisions, making it harder for them to choose and often leaving them dissatisfied with their choices. Unhappy people tend to use the "maximizing" method, aiming to select the best possible option (Schwartz et al., 2002).

The Impact of Self-Reflection

Unhappy individuals often engage in excessive self-reflection, concentrating on negative aspects of themselves and their lives. Even when people experience temporary happiness, they tend to revert to their usual happiness level or "happiness baseline." There is an association between personality and the happiness baseline: personality characteristics are relatively fixed and intertwined with individual happiness levels (Diener & Lucas, 1999).

The Sustainable Happiness Model

One concept psychologists have explored is the Sustainable Happiness Model, which suggests altering cognitive, behavioral, and motivational thought processes to focus more on the positive. Examples include intentional acts of kindness (behavioral), visualizing the best possible selves (cognitive), expressing gratitude (cognitive), and pursuing life goals (motivational) (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005).

Genetic and Situational Influences on Happiness

Opponents of the notion that happiness is largely within our control point to evidence suggesting much less control over one's happiness level. One theory indicates that the heritability of happiness is around 50%, suggesting that half of the variability in the population's happiness scores is genetic, with the other half stemming from experiences (Lykken & Tellegen, 1996). Another theory, the hedonic treadmill, posits that individuals have a happiness baseline but can slightly adapt to life experiences, both positive and negative, usually staying near their baseline (Brickman & Campbell, 1971).

The 40% Estimate Debate

There is a theory refuted by critics known as the 40% estimate. It suggests that if heritability accounts for 50% and demographic variables for 10%, the remaining 40% could be within our power to change. Critics argue that the remaining 40% includes numerous factors, both situational and personality-related, that may not be fully controllable but still affect emotions (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006).

Conclusion

Personally, I lean towards the view that it is challenging to deviate significantly from our happiness baseline. I have experienced firsthand how easily one can revert to it, despite efforts to change or elevate it for a happier, more fulfilling life. However, it remains an open question whether one must have depression to possess a low happiness baseline that is unsatisfactory. Would it be unwise to attempt strategies purported to enhance personal growth, despite statistical errors and inconclusive evidence?

References

• Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 287-302). Academic Press.
• Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213-229). Russell Sage Foundation.
• Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. Penguin Press.
• Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131.
• Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186-189.
• Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197.
• Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). Achieving sustainable new happiness: Prospects, practices, and prescriptions. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 335-356). Guilford Press.