Well-being contributing factors

Well-being is a topic studied in psychology, especially positive psychology. Related

concepts are eudaimonia, happiness, flourishing, quality of life, contentment,
[1]
 and meaningful life.

Contents

 1Theories
 2Methodology of study
 3Major factors
 4Biological factors
 5Personal factors
 6Relational factors
 7Institutional factors
 8Societal factors
 9Environmental factors
 10Cultural factors
 11Other factors
 12Additional future research
 13See also
 14References
 15Sources

Theories[edit]
Central theories are Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being, Ryff's Six-factor
Model of Psychological Well-being, Corey Keyes' work on flourishing, and Seligman's
contributions to positive psychology and his theories on authentic
happiness and P.E.R.M.A.
Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, "the good life" or flourishing, living
according to what holds the greatest value in life – the factors that contribute the most to
a well-lived and fulfilling life. While not attempting a strict definition of the good life,
positive psychologists agree that one must live a happy, engaged, and meaningful life in
order to experience "the good life". Martin Seligman referred to "the good life" as "using
your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant
gratification".[2] According to Christopher Peterson, "eudaimonia trumps hedonism".[3]
Research on positive psychology, well-being, eudaimonia and happiness, and the
theories of Diener, Ryff, Keyes and Seligmann cover a broad range of levels and topics,
including "the biological, personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global
dimensions of life."[4]
The pursuit[5] of happiness predicts both positive emotions and less depressive
symptoms. People[5] who prioritize happiness are more psychologically able, all else held
equal.
Methodology of study[edit]
Well-being measurement[edit]
Different ways of measuring well-being reveal different contributing factors. The
correlation between two of these, life satisfaction and happiness, in the World Values
Survey (1981–2005) is only 0.47.[6] These are different, but related concepts which are
used interchangeably outside of academia. Typically, life satisfaction, or evaluative
wellbeing is measured with Cantril's self-anchoring ladder, a questionnaire where
wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1–10. Happiness or hedonic/Affective well-being
measurement is measured with the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), a
more complex scale.
Limitations[edit]
The UK Government's Department of Health compiled a factsheet in 2014, in which it is
stated that the key limitations to well-being, quality of life and life satisfaction research
are that:[7]

 There are numerous associations and correlations in the body of evidence,

but few causal relationships, since existing longitudinal datasets "do not use
consistent wellbeing and predictor measures at different time points";
 After controlling for mental health status, not many of the found associations
are still significant;
 Subgroup analyses are rare;
 There are too few studies to conduct meta-analyses;
 There are too few interventional studies.

Major factors[edit]
For evaluative well-being (life satisfaction)[edit]
Mental health is the strongest[8] individual predictor of life satisfaction. Mental illness is
associated[9] with poorer well-being. In fact, mental health is the strongest determinant of
quality of life at a later age.
Studies[10] have documented the relationship between anxiety and quality of life.
The VOXEU[11] analysis of happiness showed the principal determinants of an adult's life
satisfaction to be income, parenting, family break up, mother's mental health and
schooling. The factors that explain life satisfaction roughly map (negatively) to those
factors that explain misery. They are first and foremost diagnosed depression/anxiety,
which explains twice as much as the next factor, physical health (number of medical
conditions), that explains just as much variance in subjective well-being between
people, as income and whether someone is partnered. These factors count twice as
much as each of whether someone is employed and whether they are a non-criminal,
which in turn are 3 times as important as years of education.
Overall, the best predictor of an adult's life satisfaction is their emotional health as a
child as reported by the mother and child. It trumps factors like the qualifications that
someone gets and their behaviour at 16 as reported by the mother. A child and
therefore an adult's emotional health is most affected itself by a mother's mental health,
which is just over twice as important as family income. 2/3 as important as family
income is parent's involvement, which is 0.1 partial correlation coefficients more
important than aggressive parenting (negative), father's unemployment (negative),
family conflict (negative) and whether the mother worked in the subject's 1st year of life.
Whether the mother worked thereafter has 0 correlation with well-being, however. In
terms of non-family factors, the place where someone goes to secondary school
matters a fair bit more than observed family background altogether, which in turn is
slightly more important than the place where someone went to primary school.
For affective well-being (happiness)[edit]
The main determinants of affective well-being, by correlation and effect size are:[6]

1. Corruption index (-0.54)
2. Public service quality (0.40)
3. GDP per capita (although, there is evidence of publication bias) (0.39)
4. Economic freedom (0.35)
5. Human rights violations (-0.33)
6. Political and economic violence (-0.28)
7. Life expectancy at birth (0.27)
8. Unemployment (0.19)
9. Marital status (0.07)
Determinants that correlate highly with one another, for instance, alternative ways of
measuring corruption, are excluded from this list.

Biological factors[edit]
Gender[edit]
Over the last 33 years, a significant decrease in women's happiness leads researchers
to believe that men are happier than women.[12] In contrast, a Pew Research Centre
survey found that more women are satisfied with their lives than men, overall.[13] Other
research has found no gender gap in happiness.[14]
Part of these findings could be due to the way men and women differ in calculating their
happiness. Women calculate the positive self-esteem, closeness in their relationships
and religion. Men calculate positive self-esteem, active leisure and mental control.
[15]
 Therefore, neither men nor women are at greater risk of being less happy than the
other. Earlier in life, women are more likely than men to fulfill their goals (material goals
and family life aspirations), thereby increasing their life satisfaction and overall
happiness. However, it is later in life that men fulfill their goals, are more satisfied with
their family life and financial situation and, as a result, their overall happiness surpasses
that of women.[16] Possible explanations include the unequal division of labor within the
household,[17] or that women experience more variance (more extremes) in emotion but
are generally happier.[18] Effects of gender on well-being are paradoxical: men report
feeling less happy than women,[19] however, women are more susceptible to depression.
[20]

A study was conducted by Siamak Khodarahimi to determine the roles of gender and
age on positive psychology constructs – psychological hardiness, emotional
intelligence, self-efficacy and happiness – among 200 Iranian adolescents and 200
young adults who were questioned through various tests. The study found that the
males of the sample showed significantly higher rates in psychological hardiness,
emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and happiness than females, regardless of age.[21]
Genetics[edit]
Happiness is partly genetically based.[22][23] Based on twin studies, 50 percent of a given
human's happiness level is genetically determined, 10 percent is affected by life
circumstances and situation, and a remaining 40 percent of happiness is subject to self-
control.[24]
Whether emotions are genetically determined or not was studied by David Lykken and
Auke Tellegen. They found that up to 80% of the variance in long-term sense of well-
being among Minnesotan twins separated at birth was attributable to heredity.[25] The
remaining theoretical 20%, however, still leaves room for significant change in thoughts
and behavior from environmental/learned sources that should not be understated, and
the interpretation of variance in twin studies is controversial, even among clinical
psychologists.[26]
Individual differences in both overall Eudaimonia, identified loosely with self-control, and
in the facets of eudaimonia are inheritable. Evidence from one study supports 5
independent genetic mechanisms underlying the Ryff facets of this trait, leading to a
genetic construct of eudaimonia in terms of general self-control, and four subsidiary
biological mechanisms enabling the psychological capabilities of purpose, agency,
growth, and positive social relations.[27]
Neurology[edit]
It is generally accepted that happiness is at least in part mediated
through dopaminergic, adrenergic and serotonergic metabolism.[28] A correlation has
been found between hormone levels and happiness. SSRIs, such as Prozac, are used
to adjust the levels of serotonin in the clinically unhappy. Researchers, such
as Alexander, have indicated that many peoples usage of narcotics may be the
unwitting result of attempts to readjust hormone levels to cope with situations that make
them unhappy.[29]
A positive relationship has been found between the volume of gray matter in the
right precuneus area of the brain and the subject's subjective happiness score.
[30]
 Meditation based interventions, including mindfulness, have been found to correlate
with a significant gray matter increase within the precuneus.[31][32][33][34][35]
Neuroscience's findings[edit]
Neuroscience and brain imaging have shown increasing potential for helping science
understand happiness and sadness. Though it may be impossible to achieve any
comprehensive objective measure of happiness, some physiological correlates to
happiness can be measured. Stefan Klein, in his book The Science of Happiness, links
the dynamics of neurobiological systems (i.e., dopaminergic, opiate) to the concepts
and findings of positive psychology and social psychology.[36]
Nobel prize winner Eric Kandel and researcher Cynthia Fu described very accurate
diagnoses of depression just by looking at fMRI brain scans.[37] By identifying neural
correlates for emotions, scientists may be able to use methods like brain scans to tell us
more about the different ways of being "happy". Richard Davidson has conducted
research to determine which parts of the brain are involved in positive emotions. He
found that the left prefrontal cortex is more activated when we are happy and is also
associated with greater ability to recover from negative emotions as well as enhanced
ability to suppress negative emotions. Davidson found that people can train themselves
to increase activation in this area of their brains.[38] It is thought that our brain can change
throughout our lives as a result of our experiences; this is known as neuroplasticity.
The evolutionary perspective offers an alternative approach to understanding happiness
and quality of life. Key guiding questions are: What features are included in the brain
that allow humans to distinguish between positive and negative states of mind? How do
these features improve humans' ability to survive and reproduce? The evolutionary
perspective claims that the answers to these questions point towards an understanding
of what happiness is about and how to best exploit the capacities of the brain with which
humans are endowed. This perspective is presented formally and in detail by the
evolutionary biologist Bjørn Grinde in his book Darwinian Happiness.[39]

Personal factors[edit]
In relation with age[edit]
In adolescence[edit]
There has been a significant focus in past research on adulthood, in regards to well-
being and development and although eudaimonia is not a new field of study, there has
been little research done in the areas of adolescence and youth. Research that has
been done on this age group had previously explored more negative aspects than well-
being, such as problem and risk behaviours (i.e. drug and alcohol use).
Researchers who conducted a study in 2013 recognized the absence of adolescents in
eudaimonic research and the importance of this developmental stage. Adolescents
rapidly face cognitive, social and physical changes, making them prime subjects to
study for development and well-being. The eudaimonic identity theory was used in their
research to examine the development of identity through self-discovery and self-
realization. They emphasize the personal value found in discovering and appeasing
one's “daimon” (daemon) through subjective experiences that develop eudaimonic
happiness from aligning with one's true self.[40]: 250 
Researchers focused their studies on PYD (positive youth development) and
the eudaimonic identity theory in the context of three developmental elements: self-
defining activities, personal expressiveness and goal-directed behaviours.
They determined that adolescents sample multiple self-defining activities; these
activities aid in identity formation, as individuals choose activities that they believe
represents who they are. These self-defining activities also help determine the
adolescent's social environments. For example, an adolescent involved in sports, would
likely surround themselves with like-minded active and competitive people.
Personal expressiveness, as coined by psychologist A. S. Waterman, are the activities
that we choose to express and connect with our “daimon” through subjective
experiences.[41]
Finally, goal-directed behaviours, are developed through goal setting, where individuals
work towards identity establishment. Adolescents recognize their passions, abilities and
talents and aim to fulfill their goals and behave in a way that appeases their true self.[40]: 251 
The study on adolescents was conducted in Italy, Chile and the United States, which
produced slightly varied outcomes. Outcomes were contingent on availability, access
and choice of opportunities (activities).[40]: 254  Socioeconomic context also affected the
results, as not all individuals could access the activities that may be more in-line with
their true selves.
The Personally Expressive Activities Questionnaire (PEAQ) was used to conduct the
study. Adolescence was the youngest age group that the PEAQ was used on. The
PEAQ asked adolescents to self-report on activities they participate in and describe
themselves with self-defining activities.[40]: 260  It was reported that 80% of adolescents
defined themselves with two to four self-defining activities signifying an understanding in
adolescence of self-concept through the domains of leisure, work and academia.[40]: 255 
Leisure activities were found to have the largest impact on individuals because these
activities were the most self-directed of the three domains, as adolescents had the
choice of activity, and were more likely to be able to align it with their true selves. The
study found that subjective experiences were more important than the activities
themselves and that adolescents reported higher levels of well-being. They reported
that when adolescents express themselves through self-defining activities across
multiple domains, they have a clearer image of themselves, of what they want to
achieve and higher wellness. Goal-setting was found to be a unique predictor; when
adolescents work towards goals set by themselves and accomplish them, they are likely
to have a clearer emerging identity and higher well-being. Researchers found that more
adolescents were happy when they were involved in self-chosen activities because the
activities were chosen in line with their true self.[40]: 257–259 
In midlife[edit]
The midlife crisis may mark the first reliable drop in happiness during an average
human's life. Evidence suggests most people generally become happier with age, with
the exception of the years 40 – 50, which is the typical age at which a crisis might occur.
Researchers specify that people in both their 20s and 70s are happier than during
midlife, although the extent of happiness changes at different rates. For example,
feelings of stress and anger tend to decline after age 20, worrying drops after age 50,
and enjoyment very slowly declines in adulthood but finally starts to rise after age 50.[42][43]
[44]
 Well-being in late life is more likely to be related to other contextual factors including
proximity to death.[45][46] However, most of this terminal decline in well-being could be
attributed to other changes in age-normative functional declines including physical
health and function.[47] Also, there is growing debate that assumptions that a single
population estimate of age-related changes in well-being truly reflects the lived
experiences of older adults has been questioned. The use of growth mixture modelling
frameworks has allowed researchers to identify homogenous groups of individuals who
are more similar to each other than the population based on their level and change in
well-being and has shown that most report stable well-being in their late life and in the
decade prior to death.[48] These findings are based on decades of data, and control for
cohort groups; the data avoids the risk that the drops in happiness during midlife are
due to populations' unique midlife experiences, like a war. The studies have also
controlled for income, job status and parenting (as opposed to childlessness) to try to
isolate the effects of age.
Researchers found support for the notion of age changes inside the individual that affect
happiness. This could be for any number of reasons. Psychological factors could
include greater awareness of one's self and preferences; an ability to control desires
and have more realistic expectations – unrealistic expectations tend to foster
unhappiness; moving closer to death may motivate people to pursue personal goals;
improved social skills, like forgiveness, may take years to develop – the practice of
forgiveness seems linked to higher levels of happiness; or happier people may live
longer and are slightly overrepresented in the elderly population. Age-related chemical
changes might also play a role.[43][44][49][18]
Other studies have found older individuals reported more health problems, but fewer
problems overall. Young adults reported more anger, anxiety, depression, financial
problems, troubled relationships and career stress. Researchers also suggest
depression in the elderly is often due largely to passivity and inaction – they recommend
people continue to undertake activities that bring happiness, even in old age.[50]
The activity restriction model of depressed affect suggests that stressors that disrupt
traditional activities of daily life can lead to a decrease in mental health. The elderly
population is vulnerable to activity restriction because of the disabling factors related to
age. Increases in scheduled activity, as well as social support, can decrease the
chances of activity restriction.[51]
In relation with depression and languishing[edit]
A study by Keyes found that there are major costs of depression, which 14% of adults
experience annually: it impairs social roles; it costs billions each year due to work
absenteeism, diminished productivity, and healthcare costs; finally, depression accounts
for at least one-third of suicides. Therefore, it is important to study flourishing to learn
about what is possible if issues such as depression are tackled and how the
ramifications of focusing on the positive make life better not just for one person, but also
for others around them.[52]
Flourishing has significant positive aspects magnified when compared to languishing
adults and when languishing adults are compared to depressed adults, as explained by
Keyes. For example, languishing adults have the same amount of chronic disease as
those that are depressed whereas flourishing adults are in exceptionally better physical
health. Languishing adults miss as many days at work as depressed adults and, in fact,
visit doctors and therapists more than depressed adults.[53]
Positive psychology interventions (PPI) in patients[edit]
A strengths-based approach to personal positive change aims to have clinical
psychology place an equal weight on both positive and negative functioning when
attempting to understand and treat distress.[54] This rationale is based on empirical
findings. Because positive characteristics interact with negative life events to predict
disorder the exclusive study of negative life events could produce misleading results.[55]
Thus, psychologists are looking to use positive psychology to treat patients. Amy
Krentzman, among the others, discussed positive intervention as a way to treat patients.
She defined positive intervention as a therapy or activity primarily aimed at increasing
positive feelings, positive behaviors, or positive cognitions, as opposed to focusing on
negative thoughts or dysfunctional behaviors. A way of using positive intervention as a
clinical treatment is to use positive activity interventions. Positive activity interventions,
or PAIs, are brief self-administered exercises that promote positive feelings, thoughts,
and behaviors. Two widely used PAIs are “Three Good Things” and “Best Future Self.”
“Three Good Things” requires a patient to daily document, for a week, three events that
went well during the day, and the respective cause, or causes (this exercise can be
modified with counterfactual thinking, that is, adding the imagination of things had them
been worse[56]). “Best Future Self” has a patient “think about their life in the future, and
imagine that everything has gone as well as it possibly could. They have worked hard
and succeeded at accomplishing all of their life goals. Think of this as the realization of
all of their life dreams.” The patient is then asked to write down what they imagined.
These positive interventions have been shown to decrease depression,[57][58] and
interventions focusing on strengths and positive emotions can, in fact, be as effective in
treating disorder as other more commonly used approaches such as cognitive
behavioral therapy.[59][60] Moreover, the apparent effect of PPIs cannot be caused
by publication bias, according to a meta-analysis on 49 studies (2009). PPIs studied
included producing gratitude letters, performing optimistic thinking, replaying positive life
experiences, and socializing with people.[60]
Also, in a newer meta-analysis (39 studies, 6,139 participants, 2012), the standardized
mean difference was 0.34 higher for subjective well-being, 0.20 for psychological well-
being and 0.23 for depression. Three to six months after the intervention, the effects for
subjective well-being and psychological well-being were still significant, so effects seem
fairly sustainable. However, in high-quality studies, the positive effect was weaker,
though positive, so authors considered further high-quality studies necessary to
strengthen the evidence. They claimed that the above-mentioned meta-analysis (2009)
did not put enough weight on the quality of studies. PPIs found positive included
blessings, kindness practices, taking personal goals, and showing gratitude.[58]
The interventions called "Gratitude Journaling" and "Three Good Things" seem to
operate via gratitude.[57] There is evidence that, when gratitude journaling, focussing on
quality over quantity as well as people more than possessions, yields greater benefits.
[61]
 There is also evidence of a diminished effect from gratitude journaling if it is done
more than once or twice a week. Journaling sans gratitude is effective in decreasing
negative emotions in general, which suggests that the act of journaling, rather than
gratitude alone, is involved in the treatment effect.[62]
Positive psychology seeks to inform clinical psychology of the potential to expand its
approach, and of the merit of the possibilities. Given a fair opportunity, positive
psychology might well change priorities to better address the breadth and depth of the
human experience in clinical settings.
Post-traumatic growth[edit]
Posttraumatic growth (PTG) is a possible outcome after a traumatic event,
besides posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Following a traumatic event, for instance
rape, incest, cancer, attack, or combat, "it is normal to experience debilitating symptoms
of depression and anxiety."[63] A person who shows PTG however, will experience these
negative outcomes for a time and then show an increase in well-being, higher than it
was before the trauma occurred. Martin Seligman, a founder of positive psychology,
emphasizes that "arriving at a higher level of psychological functioning than before" is a
key point in PTG.[64] If instead an individual experiences a depressive period but recovers
from an incident and returns to their normal level of psychological functioning, they are
demonstrating resilience.[64] This suggests that in PTG, the trauma acts as a turning point
for the person to achieve greater well-being. Seligman recognizes "the fact that trauma
often sets the stage for growth" and given the right tools, individuals can make the most
of that opportunity."[64]
When reflecting on a traumatic growth, Seligman suggests using the following five
elements to facilitate PTG: understand the response to trauma, reduce anxiety, utilize
constructive disclosure, create a trauma narrative, and articulate life principles and
stances that are more robust to challenge.[64] Someone experiencing PTG will achieve
elements of Seligman’s "good life" theory, including a more meaningful and purposeful
valuing of life, improved positive relationships, accomplishment, and a more optimistic
and open mindset according to the broaden-and-build theory.[65]
Post-traumatic growth in constructive journalism[edit]
The phenomenon of PTG is applicable to many disciplines. The construct is important
not only for just soldiers, emergency responders, and survivors of traumatic events, but
on average, for everyday citizens facing typical adversity. One way to expose citizens to
stories of PTG is through constructive journalism. Constructive journalism, as defined by
PhD student Karen McIntyre at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, is "an emerging
style of journalism in which positive psychology techniques are applied to news work
with the aim of engaging readers by creating more productive news stories, all while
maintaining core journalistic functions".[66] Cathrine Gyldensted, an experienced reporter
with a Masters in applied positive psychology and coauthor of two books, demonstrated
that typical news reporting, which is associated with negative valence, harms mood.
[67]
 Using PTG to focus on victims' strengths and instances of overcoming adversity
encourages readers to implement similar ideals in their own lives. "So the goal of
positive psychology in well-being theory is to measure and to build human
flourishing."[64] Combining positive psychology constructs like PTG, PERMA, and
"broaden and build" with journalism could potentially improve affect and inspire
individuals about the benefits of positive psychology.
PERMA not only plays a role in our own personal lives but also can be used for public
major news stories. With this model, journalists can instead focus on the positives of a
story and ask questions about how conflicts or even tragedies have brought people
together, how someone has experienced post-traumatic growth, and more. News
stories then shift the perspective from a victimizing one to an uplifting one. Positive
psychology is slowly but steadily making its way through news reporting via constructive
journalism. PERMA helps journalists ask the right questions to continue that progress
by bringing the focus of a potentially negative story to the positives and solutions.[68]
Affect - ratio of positive to negative affect[edit]
Fredrickson and Losada postulated in 2005 that the ratio of positive to negative affect,
known as the critical positivity ratio, can distinguish individuals that flourish from those
that do not. Languishing was characterized by a ratio of positive to negative affect of
2.5. Optimal functioning or flourishing was argued to occur at a ratio of 4.3. The point at
which flourishing changes to languishing is called the Losada line and is placed at the
positivity ratio of 2.9. Those with higher ratios were claimed to have broader behavioral
repertoires, greater flexibility and resilience to adversity, more social resources, and
more optimal functioning in many areas of their life.[69] The model also predicted the
existence of an upper limit to happiness, reached at a positivity ratio of 11.5.
Fredrickson and Losada claimed that at this limit, flourishing begins to disintegrate and
productivity and creativity decrease. They suggested as positivity increased, so to
"appropriate negativity" needs to increase. This was described as time-limited,
practicable feedback connected to specific circumstances, i.e. constructive criticism.[69]
This positivity ratio theory was widely accepted until 2013, when Nick Brown, a graduate
student in applied positive psychology, co-authored a paper with Alan Sokal and Harris
Friedman, showing that the mathematical basis of the paper was invalid.[70] Fredrickson
partially retracted the paper, agreeing that the math may be flawed, but maintaining that
the empirical evidence is still valid.[71] Brown and colleagues insist there is no evidence
for the critical positivity ratio whatsoever.[72]
In relation with basic emotions[edit]
Most psychologists focus on a person's most basic emotions. There are thought to be
between seven and fifteen basic emotions. The emotions can be combined in many
ways to create more subtle variations of emotional experience. This suggests that any
attempt to wholly eliminate negative emotions from our life would have the unintended
consequence of losing the variety and subtlety of our most profound emotional
experiences. Efforts to increase positive emotions will not automatically result in
decreased negative emotions, nor will decreased negative emotions necessarily result
in increased positive emotions.[73] Russell and Feldman Barrett (1992) described
emotional reactions as core affects, which are primitive emotional reactions that are
consistently experienced but often not acknowledged; they blend pleasant and
unpleasant as well as activated and deactivated dimensions that we carry with us at an
almost unconscious level.[74]
While a 2012 study found that wellbeing was higher for people who experienced both
positive and negative emotions,[75][76] evidence suggests negative emotions can be
damaging. In an article titled "The undoing effect of positive emotions", Barbara
Fredrickson et al. hypothesized positive emotions undo the cardiovascular effects of
negative emotions. When people experience stress, they show increased heart rate,
higher blood sugar, immune suppression, and other adaptations optimized for
immediate action. If unregulated, the prolonged physiological activation can lead to
illness, coronary heart disease, and heightened mortality. Both lab and survey research
substantiate that positive emotions help people under stress to return to a preferable,
healthier physiological baseline.[77] Other research shows that improved mood is one of
the various benefits of physical exercise.[78]
Behavioral repertoire[edit]
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions suggests positive emotions
(e.g. happiness, interest, anticipation)[79] broaden one's awareness and encourage novel,
varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions. Over time, this broadened behavioral
repertoire builds skills and resources. For example, curiosity about a landscape
becomes valuable navigational knowledge; pleasant interactions with a stranger
become a supportive friendship; aimless physical play becomes exercise and physical
excellence. Positive emotions are contrasted with negative emotions, which prompt
narrow survival-oriented behaviors. For example, the negative emotion of anxiety leads
to the specific fight-or-flight response for immediate survival.[79]
Elevation[edit]
Main article: Elevation (emotion)
After several years of researching disgust, Jonathan Haidt, and others, studied its
opposite; the term "elevation" was coined. Elevation is a pleasant moral emotion,
triggered by witnessing virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness and resulting in a
desire to act morally and do "good". As an emotion it has a biological basis, and is
sometimes characterized by a feeling of expansion in the chest or a tingling feeling on
the skin.[80][81]
In relation with experience[edit]
Thomas Nagel has said that "There are elements which, if added to one's experience,
make life better; there are other elements which if added to one's experience, make life
worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is
emphatically positive."[82][83]
The concept of "flourishing"[edit]
Main article: Flourishing
The term flourishing, in positive psychology, refers to optimal human functioning. It
comprises four parts: goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience (Fredrickson,
2005).[84] According to Fredrickson (2005), goodness is made up of: happiness,
contentment, and effective performance; generativity is about making life better for
future generations, and is defined by “broadened thought-action repertoires and
behavioral flexibility”; growth involves the use of personal and social assets; and
resilience reflects survival and growth after enduring a hardship.[84] A flourishing life
stems from mastering all four of these parts. Two contrasting ideologies are languishing
and psychopathology. On the mental health continuum, these are considered
intermediate mental health disorders, reflecting someone living an unfulfilled and
perhaps meaningless life. Those who languish experience more emotional pain,
psychosocial deficiency, restrictions in regular activities, and missed workdays.[84]
Fredrickson & Losada (2005) conducted a study on university students, operationalizing
positive and negative affect.[84] Based on a mathematical model which has been strongly
criticized,[70] and now been formally withdrawn by Fredrickson as invalid,[85] Fredrickson &
Losada claimed to have discovered a critical positivity ratio, above which people would
flourish and below which they would not. Although Fredrickson claims that her
experimental results are still valid,[86] these experimental results have also been
questioned due to poor statistical methodology, and Alan Sokal has pointed out that
"given [Fredrickson and Losada's] experimental design and method of data analysis, no
data whatsoever could possibly give any evidence of any nonlinearity in the relationship
between "flourishing" and the positivity ratio — much less evidence for a sharp
discontinuity."[87]
Another study surveyed a U.S. sample of 3,032 adults, aged 25–74. Results showed
17.2 percent of adults were flourishing, while 56.6 percent were moderately mentally
healthy. Some common characteristics of a flourishing adult included: educated, older,
married and wealthy. The study findings suggest there is room for adults to improve as
less than 20 percent of Americans are living a flourishing life. (Keyes, 2002).[52]
Benefits from living a flourishing life emerge from research on the effects of
experiencing a high ratio of positive to negative affect. The studied benefits of positive
affect are increased responsiveness, "broadened behavioral repertoires", increased
instinct, and increased perception and imagination.[84] In addition, the good feelings
associated with flourishing result in improvements to immune system functioning,
cardiovascular recovery, lessened effects of negative affect, and frontal brain
asymmetry.[84] Other benefits to those of moderate mental health or moderate levels of
flourishing were: stronger psychological and social performance, high resiliency, greater
cardiovascular health, and an overall healthier lifestyle (Keyes, 2007).[88] The
encountered benefits of flourishing suggest a definition: "[flourishing] people experience
high levels of emotional, psychological and social well being due to vigor and vitality,
self-determination, continuous self- growth, close relationships and a meaningful and
purposeful life" (Siang-Yang, 2006, p. 70).[89]
Happiness[edit]
Happiness measurement[edit]
Oxford Happiness Questionnaire[edit]
Psychologists Peter Hills and Michael Argyle developed the Oxford Happiness
Questionnaire[90] as a broad measure of psychological well-being. The approach was
criticized for lacking a theoretical model of happiness and for overlapping too much with
related concepts such as self-esteem, sense of purpose, social interest, kindness,
sense of humor and aesthetic appreciation.[91]
Satisfaction with Life Scale[edit]
"Happiness" encompasses different emotional and mental phenomena. One method of
assessment is Ed Diener's Satisfaction with Life Scale. According to Diener, this five-
question survey corresponds well with impressions from friends and family, and low
incidence of depression.[42][clarification needed]
Rather than long-term, big picture appraisals, some methods attempt to identify the
amount of positive affect from one activity to the next. Scientists use beepers to remind
volunteers to write down the details of their current situation. Alternatively, volunteers
complete detailed diary entries each morning about the day before.[42] A discrepancy
arises when researchers compare the results of these short-term "experience sampling"
methods, with long-term appraisals. Namely, the latter may not be very accurate; people
may not know what makes their life pleasant from one moment to the next. For
instance, parents' appraisals mention their children as sources of pleasure, while
"experience sampling" indicates parents were not enjoying caring for their children,
compared to other activities.[42][92]
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains this discrepancy by differentiating between
happiness according to the "experiencing self" compared to the "remembering self":
when asked to reflect on experiences, memory biases like the Peak-End effect (e.g. we
mostly remember the dramatic parts of a vacation, and how it was at the end) play a
large role. A striking finding was in a study of colonoscopy patients. Adding 60 seconds
to this invasive procedure, Kahneman found participants reported the colonoscopy
as more pleasant. This was attributed to making sure the colonoscopy instrument was
not moved during the extra 60 seconds – movement is the source of the most
discomfort. Thus, Kahneman was appealing to the remembering self's tendency to
focus on the end of the experience. Such findings help explain human error in affective
forecasting – people's ability to predict their future emotional states.[92]

The "remembering self" may not be the best source of information for pleasing the "experiencing self".

Changes in happiness levels[edit]

Daniel Kahneman

Humans exhibit a variety of abilities. This includes an ability of emotional Hedonic

Adaptation, an idea suggesting that beauty, fame and money do not generally have
lasting effects on happiness (this effect has also been called the Hedonic treadmill). In
this vein, some research has suggested that only recent events, meaning those that
occurred within the last 3 months, affect happiness levels.[93]
The tendency to adapt, and therefore return to an earlier level of happiness, is
illustrated by studies showing lottery winners are no happier in the years after they've
won.[42] Other studies have shown paraplegics are nearly as happy as control groups that
are not paralyzed,[94] after equally few years. Daniel Kahneman explains: "they are not
paraplegic full time... It has to do with allocation of attention". Thus, contrary to
our impact biases, lotteries and paraplegia do not change experiences to as great a
degree as we would believe.
However, in a newer study (2007), winning a medium-sized lottery prize had a lasting
mental wellbeing effect of 1.4 GHQ points on Britons even two years after the event.
[95]
 Moreover, adaptation can be a very slow and incomplete process. Distracting life
changes such as the death of a spouse or losing one's job can show measurable
changes in happiness levels for several years.[42] Even the "adapted" paraplegics
mentioned above did ultimately report lower levels of pleasure (again, they were happier
than one would expect, but not fully adapted).[96] Thus, adaptation is a complex process,
and while it does mitigate the emotional effects of many life events it cannot mitigate
them entirely.
Happiness set point[edit]
The happiness set point idea is that most people return to an average level of
happiness – or a set point – after temporary highs and lows in emotionality. People
whose set points lean toward positive emotionality tend to be cheerful most of the time
and those whose set points tend to be more negative emotionality tend to gravitate
toward pessimism and anxiety. Lykken found that we can influence our level of well-
being by creating environments more conductive to feelings of happiness and by
working with our genetic makeup.[25] One reason that subjective well-being is for the
most part stable is because of the great influence genetics have. Although the events of
life have some effect on subjective well-being, the general population returns to their set
point.[97]

In the recipe for one person's happiness, it is nonsensical to blame one ingredient (because all are necessary).
However, when comparing two people's happiness, ingredients like genetics can account for as much as half
the difference.

In her book The How of Happiness, Sonja Lyubomirsky similarly argued people's

happiness varies around a genetic set point. Diener warns, however, that it is
nonsensical to claim that "happiness is influenced 30–50% by genetics". Diener
explains that the recipe for happiness for an individual always requires genetics,
environment, and behaviour too, so it is nonsensical to claim that an individual's
happiness is due to only one ingredient.
Only differences in happiness can be attributed to differences in factors. In other words,
Lyubomirsky's research does not discuss happiness in one individual; it discusses
differences in happiness between two or more people. Specifically, Lyubomirsky
suggests that 30–40% of the difference in happiness levels is due to genetics
(i.e. heritable). In other words, still, Diener says it makes no sense to say one person's
happiness is "due 50% to genetics", but it does make sense to say one person's
difference in happiness is 50% due to differences in their genetics (and the rest is due
to behaviour and environment).[25][96]
Findings from twin studies support the findings just mentioned. Twins reared apart had
nearly the same levels of happiness thereby suggesting the environment is not entirely
responsible for differences in people's happiness.[25] Importantly, an individual's baseline
happiness is not entirely determined by genetics, and not even by early life influences
on one's genetics. Whether or not a person manages to elevate their baseline to the
heights of their genetic possibilities depends partly on several factors, including actions
and habits. Some happiness-boosting habits seem to include gratitude, appreciation,
and even altruistic behavior.[42][98] Other research-based habits and techniques for
increasing happiness are discussed on this page.
Besides the development of new habits, the use of antidepressants, effective exercise,
and a healthier diet have proven to affect mood significantly. There is evidence[99] that a
vegan diet reduces stress and anxiety. Exercise is sometimes called the "miracle" or
"wonder" drug – alluding to the wide variety of proven benefits it provides.[100][101] It is worth
mentioning that a recent book, Anatomy of an Epidemic, challenges the use of non-
conservative usage of medications for mental patients, specially with respect to their
long-term positive feedback effects.[102]
Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche has said that neuro scientists have found that with
meditation, an individual's happiness baseline can change.[103] and meditation has been
found to increase happiness in several studies. A study on Brahma Kumaris Raja
yoga meditators showed them having higher happiness (Oxford happiness
questionnaire) than the control group.[104]
Evidences against the happiness set point theory[edit]
In recent large panel studies divorce, death of a spouse, unemployment, disability and
similar events have been shown to change the long-term subjective well-being, even
though some adaptation does occur and inborn factors affect this.[105]
Fujita and Diener found that 24% of people changed significantly between the first five
years of the study and the last five years. Almost one in four people showed changes in
their well-being over the years; indeed sometimes those changes were quite dramatic.
[106]
 Bruce Headey found that 5–6% of people dramatically increased their life satisfaction
over a 15- to 20-year period and that the goals people pursued significantly affected
their life satisfaction.[107]
Personal training to increase happiness[edit]
The easiest and best possible way to increase one's happiness is by doing something
that increases the ratio of positive to negative emotions. Contrary to some beliefs, in
many scenarios, people are actually very good at determining what will increase their
positive emotions.[108] There have been many techniques developed to help increase
one's happiness.
A first technique is known as the "Sustainable Happiness Model (SHM)." This model
proposes that long-term happiness is determined upon: (1) one's genetically
determined set-point, (2) circumstantial factors, and (3) intentional activities.
Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade suggest to make these changes in the correct way
in order to have long-term happiness.[109] Another suggestion of how to increase one's
happiness is through a procedure called "Hope Training." Hope Training is primarily
focused on hope due to the belief that hope drives the positive emotions of well-being.
[110]
 This training is based on the hope theory, which states that well-being can increase
once people have developed goals and believe themselves to achieve those goals.
[111]
 One of the main purposes of hope training is to eliminate individuals from false hope
syndrome. False hope syndrome particularly occurs when one believes that changing
their behavior is easy and the outcomes of the change will be evidenced in a short
period of time.[112]
There are coaching procedures based on positive psychology, which are backed by
scientific research, with availability of intervention tools and assessments that positive
psychology trained coaches can utilize to support the coaching process. Positive
psychology coaching uses scientific evidence and insights gained in these areas to
work with clients in their goals.[113]
Time and happiness[edit]
A portrait commemorating a family's day together

Philip Zimbardo suggests we might also analyze happiness from a "time perspective".

He suggested the sorting of people's focus in life by valence (positive or negative) and
also by their time perspective (past, present, or future orientation). Doing so may reveal
some individual conflicts, not over whether an activity is enjoyed, but whether one
prefers to risk delaying gratification further. Zimbardo also believes research reveals an
optimal balance of perspectives for a happy life; commenting, our focus on reliving
positive aspects of our past should be high, followed by time spent believing in a
positive future, and finally spending a moderate (but not excessive) amount of time in
enjoyment of the present.[114]
The "flow"[edit]
In the 1970s Csikszentmihalyi's started to study flow, a state of absorption where one's
abilities are well-matched to the demands at-hand. Flow is characterized by intense
concentration, loss of self-awareness, a feeling of being perfectly challenged (neither
bored nor overwhelmed), and a sense "time is flying". Flow is intrinsically rewarding; it
can also assist in the achievement of goals (e.g., winning a game) or improving skills
(e.g., becoming a better chess player).[115] Anyone can experience flow, in different
domains, such as play, creativity, and work.
Flow is achieved when the challenge of the situation meets one's personal abilities. A
mismatch of challenge for someone of low skills results in a state of anxiety; insufficient
challenge for someone highly skilled results in boredom.[115] The effect of challenging
situations means that flow is often temporarily exciting and variously stressful, but this is
considered Eustress, which is also known as "good" stress. Eustress is arguably less
harmful than chronic stress, although the pathways of stress-related systems are
similar. Both can create a "wear and tear" effect; however, the differing physiological
elements and added psychological benefits of eustress might well balance any wear
and tear experienced.
Csikszentmihalyi identified nine indicator elements of flow: 1. Clear goals exist every
step of the way, 2. Immediate feedback guides one's action, 3. There is a balance
between challenges and abilities, 4. Action and awareness are merged, 5. Distractions
are excluded from consciousness, 6. Failure is not worrisome, 7. Self-consciousness
disappears, 8. Sense of time is distorted, and 9. The activity becomes "autotelic" (an
end in itself, done for its own sake)[116] His studies also show that flow is greater during
work while happiness is greater during leisure activities.[117]
Health[edit]
Addiction[edit]
Arguably, some people pursue ineffective shortcuts to feeling good. These shortcuts
create positive feelings, but are problematic, in part because of the lack of effort
involved. Some examples of these shortcuts include shopping, drugs, chocolate,
loveless sex, and TV. These are problematic pursuits because all of these examples
have the ability to become addictive. When happiness comes to us so easily, it comes
with a price we may not realize. This price comes when taking these shortcuts is the
only way to become happy, otherwise viewed as an addiction.[57] A review by Amy
Krentzman on the Application of Positive Psychology to Substance Use, Addiction, and
Recovery Research, identified, in the field of positive psychology, three domains that
allow an individual to thrive and contribute to society.
One of these, A Pleasant Life, involves good feelings about the past, present, and
future. To tie this with addiction, they chose an example of alcoholism. Research on
positive affect and alcohol showed a majority of the population associates drinking with
pleasure. The pleasure one feels from alcohol is known as somatic pleasure, which is
immediate but a short lived sensory delight. The researchers wanted to make clear
pleasure alone does not amount to a life well lived; there is more to life than pleasure.
Secondly, the Engaged Life is associated with positive traits such as strength of
character. A few examples of character strength according to Character Strength and
Virtues: A Handbook and Classification by Seligman and Peterson (2004) are bravery,
integrity, citizenship, humility, prudence, gratitude, and hope, all of which are shown in
the rise to recovery. To descend into an addiction shows a lack of character strength;
however, rising to recovery shows the reinstatement of character strengths, including
the examples mentioned above. Thirdly, the Meaningful Life is service and membership
to positive organizations. Examples of positive organizations include family, workplace,
social groups, and society in general. Organizations, like Alcoholics Anonymous, can be
viewed as a positive organization. Membership fosters positive affect, while also
promoting character strengths, which as seen in the Engaged Life, can aid in beating
addiction.[57]
Emotional health[edit]
Researcher Dianne Hales described an emotionally healthy person as someone who
exhibits flexibility and adaptability to different circumstances, a sense of meaning and
affirmation in life, an "understanding that the self is not the center of the universe",
compassion and the ability to be unselfish, an increased depth and satisfaction in
intimate relationships, and a sense of control over the mind and body.[118]
Mental health[edit]
Layard and others show that the most important influence on happiness is mental
health.[11]
L.M. Keyes and Shane Lopez illustrate the four typologies of mental health functioning:
flourishing, struggling, floundering and languishing. However, complete mental health is
a combination of high emotional well-being, high psychological well-being, and high
social well-being, along with low mental illness.[119]
Although health is part of well-being, some people are able to maintain satisfactory
wellbeing despite the presence of psychological symptoms.[120]
Physical health[edit]
Meta-analyses published between 2013 and 2017 show that exercise is associated with
reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue and QoL plus improvements in attention,
hyperactivity, impulsivity, social functioning, schizophrenic symptoms, and verbal
fluency in various special populations. However, aerobic exercise has no significant
effect on anxiety disorders.[121]
In 2005 a study conducted by Andrew Steptow and Michael Marmot at University
College London, found that happiness is related to biological markers that play an
important role in health.[122] The researchers aimed to analyze whether there was any
association between well-being and three biological markers: heart rate, cortisol levels,
and plasma fibrinogen levels. The participants who rated themselves the least happy
had cortisol levels that were 48% higher than those who rated themselves as the most
happy. The least happy subjects also had a large plasma fibrinogen response to two
stress-inducing tasks: the Stroop test, and tracing a star seen in a mirror image.
Repeating their studies three years later Steptow and Marmot found that participants
who scored high in positive emotion continued to have lower levels of cortisol and
fibrinogen, as well as a lower heart rate.[citation needed]
In Happy People Live Longer (2011),[123] Bruno Frey reported that happy people live 14%
longer, increasing longevity 7.5 to 10 years and Richard Davidson's bestseller
(2012) The Emotional Life of Your Brain argues that positive emotion and happiness
benefit long-term health.[citation needed]
However, in 2015 a study building on earlier research found that happiness has no
effect on mortality.[124] "This "basic belief that if you're happier you're going to live longer.
That's just not true."[125] Consistent results are that "apart from good health, happy people
were more likely to be older, not smoke, have fewer educational qualifications, do
strenuous exercise, live with a partner, do religious or group activities and sleep for
eight hours a night."[125]
Happiness does however seem to have a protective impact on immunity. The tendency
to experience positive emotions was associated with greater resistance
to colds and flu in interventional studies irrespective of other factors such as smoking,
drinking, exercise, and sleep.[126][127]
Positive emotional states have a favorable effect on mortality and survival in both
healthy and diseased populations. Even at the same level of smoking, drinking,
exercise, and sleep, happier people seem to live longer.[128] Interventional trials
conducted to establish a cause-effect relationship indicate positive emotions to be
associated with greater resistance to objectively verifiable colds and flu.[129][130]
Alternative medicine[edit]
Health consumers sometimes confuse the terms "wellness" and "well-being". Wellness
is a term more commonly associated with alternative medicine which may or may not
coincide with gains in subjective well-being. In 2014,[131] the Australian Government
reviewed the effectiveness of numerous complementary therapies: they found low-
moderate quality evidence that the Alexander technique, Buteyko, massage therapy
(remedial massage[132]), tai chi and yoga are helpful for certain health conditions. On the
other hand, the balance of evidence indicates that homeopathy, aromatherapy, bowen
therapy, Feldenkrais, herbalism, iridology, kinesiology, pilates, reflexology and rolfing
shiatsu were classed as ineffective.
Fruit and vegetable consumption[edit]
There is growing evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is related to greater
happiness, life satisfaction, and positive mood as well. This evidence cannot be entirely
explained by demographic or health variables including socio-economic
status, exercise, smoking, and body mass index, suggesting a causal link.[133] Further
studies have found that fruit and vegetable consumption predicted improvements in
positive mood the next day, not vice versa. On days when people ate more fruits and
vegetables, they reported feeling calmer, happier, and more energetic than normal, and
they also felt more positive the next day.[134]
Cross-sectional studies worldwide support a relationship between happiness and fruit
and vegetable intake. Those eating fruits and vegetables each day have a higher
likelihood of being classified as “very happy,” suggesting a strong and positive
correlation between fruit and vegetable consumption and happiness.[135] Whether it be in
South Korea,[136] Iran,[137] Chile,[138] USA,[139] or UK,[140] greater fruit and vegetable
consumption had a positive association with greater happiness, independent of factors
such as smoking, exercise, body mass index, and socio-economic factors. This could
be due to the protective benefits from chronic diseases and a greater intake of nutrients
important for psychological health.[135]
Other food and drink practices associated with well-being are probiotics,[141][142] alcohol,
[143]
 and binge[144] drinking. Gluten and FODMAPs can[145] negatively impact mood in some
people. Bupa[146] recommends oily fish, food with tryptophan such as milk, nuts, lentils,
whole grain breads, cereals, pasta, soy and chocolate, dark chocolate, the
Mediterranean diet overall including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts and olive oil
for wellbeing.
The documentary ‘food matters’ includes claims of well-being benefits of raw foods,
which has been disputed as pseudoscience.[147]
Hedonic well-being
Eudaimonic well-being has been found to be empirically distinguishable from hedonic
well-being.[148][149]