Few would dispute the fact that recent decades have seen a huge increase in consumerism in most of the world’s developed countries. As we earn more and our disposable incomes grow, we are encouraged to spend more on goods and services. And why not? It’s good for the economy, and we’ve even come to believe that it’s good for us as individuals. When we’re feeling down a trip to the mall can restore our spirits, and this reality has even been expressed in a modern idiom: “Retail therapy.” There’s nothing quite like a few hours of shopping to dispel those feelings of gloom and despair.
Economic theory backs this up. In explaining our buying behaviour, economists refer to the concept of “utility.” Utility is defined as the benefit or satisfaction that a person gets from the consumption of goods and services. A person’s total utility, therefore, is the total benefit obtained from the consumption of all the different goods and services they spend their money on. Higher levels of personal income allow for greater consumption, which in turn leads to greater levels of total utility.
Now utility and happiness is not exactly the same thing, but it does seem reasonable to suggest that higher total utility should lead to increased levels of happiness. So, if we consider that average income levels in Japan rose by a multiple of five between 1958 and 1987, you would expect the Japanese people to be a good deal happier in 1987 than they were thirty years earlier. Happiness surveys in Japan turned up a curious result, however: it transpired that Japanese citizens were no happier, on average, in 1987 than they had been in 1958. Similar findings emerged from other countries which had enjoyed substantial economic growth, such as the USA, France, Germany and the UK.
What was going on? Economists tried to explain the phenomenon in terms of their existing theories of utility, without much success. Far more satisfying explanations emerged from a different field, that of psychology. Or, to be more specific, from a new branch of the subject known as positive psychology, founded by Dr Martin Seligman in the late 1990’s. Rather than concern themselves with the psychologically disturbed, Seligman and his colleagues focused on those aspects of psychology that could improve the strengths and virtues of the average person, and thereby their psychological wellbeing.
One of Seligman’s interests was to discover the external factors in a person’s life which lead to happiness. Other studies had already established that each of us has a certain “baseline” level of happiness, determined by our genes. So, although external factors will at different times make us happier or sadder, after a while we will return to our baseline levels of happiness. This also implies that some of us will generally have a happier, more positive disposition than others, who might have a tendency towards greater levels of anxiety and pessimism, and therefore have a lower baseline level of happiness.
If you’re sceptical about the effect of genes on happiness, I can tell you that the findings in this regard emanate from studies of identical twins. Identical twins are unique in that they have identical genes, being the result of a single fertilised ovum which splits in two. This is in contrast to, say, non-identical twins of the same sex, who are the result of two separate ova being fertilised at the same time, and who therefore only share 50% of the same genes.
To understand the effects of genes on personality, consider the following characteristics of real-life identical twin sisters as described by psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Daphne and Barbara were raised outside London and both left school at the age of fourteen. Both worked in local government, met their future husbands at the age of sixteen at local town hall dances, suffered miscarriages at the same time, then each gave birth to two boys and a girl. They feared many of the same things (blood and heights) and had certain unusual habits – each drank her coffee cold, and each had the habit of pushing up her nose with the palm of her hand, something they both called “squidging.”
All of this goes from the interesting to the almost unbelievable when you are told that Daphne and Barbara were separated at birth and were raised by two different families. Each only heard of the existence of the other at the age of forty, and when they met for the first time they were wearing almost identical clothing.
What such “twin” studies do is to separate, to a very large extent, the effects on personality of environmental influences and genetic differences. Researchers have come to believe that happiness is one of the most heritable aspects of personality, and that between 50% and 80% of the differences among people in their average levels of happiness can be explained by differences in their genes rather than in their life experiences.
Before we move on to examine the effect of external factors on happiness, we need to understand two other aspects of human behaviour that have emerged from positive psychology studies. The first is known as the “progress principle” and was formulated by psychologist Richard Davidson, who describes two types of positive “affect.” (Affect is the emotion we feel as the result of taking a certain action. Positive affect refers to positive feelings such as happiness, whereas negative affect describes emotions such as sadness).
The first type of positive affect identified by Davidson is “pre-goal attainment positive affect” which describes the pleasurable feelings you get as you make progress towards a goal. The second, “post-goal attainment positive affect” describes the feelings that arise after you have achieved a goal. Although both sets of feelings are positive, the duration is very different. As we work towards a goal we derive pleasure from the process, gaining more satisfaction with every step that takes us closer to completion. As Haidt points out, with goal pursuit it is the journey that counts, not the destination.
And what of the destination? What emotions do we experience when we finally achieve our goal? Typically we feel a short-lived moment of contentment, often no more thrilling than “taking off a heavy backpack at the end of a long hike” according to Haidt. This then is the progress principle: the fact that pleasure comes more from making progress towards goals than actually achieving them. That great 16th century expert on the human condition, William Shakespeare, expressed the idea a lot more eloquently: “Things won are done; joy’s soul lies in the doing.”
The second aspect of human behaviour we need to understand is described by the “adaptation principle.” This principle states that human beings adapt to their particular circumstances, and that as a result what happens to us (whether wonderful or disastrous) will not have a long-term effect on our happiness levels – after an initial period of increased happiness or despair, we will return again to our baseline levels of happiness. (However, we’re not good at recognising this before the event. We imagine that good experiences will make us happy for ever, and that catastrophic events will plunge us into permanent despair. As we will see, it doesn’t work like that).
By applying the concepts of baseline happiness levels, the progress principle and the adaptation principle, we will better be able to understand why “massive consumption” (to quote singer Lily Allen) might not make us happy for long. We’ll also be able to understand a few other apparent anomalies related to economic events and happiness.
The mystery of rising income levels and static levels of happiness (as experienced in Japan and other developed countries) is quite easily explained by the adaptation principle. As average income rose and people could afford bigger homes, nicer cars and so on, happiness levels no doubt rose as well. However, people quite soon adapted to their better economic circumstances and as a result happiness levels returned to their previous average baseline.
The likelihood that retail therapy will make us happy also has to be called into question. The progress principle suggests that planning a purchase and getting involved in the shopping process will provide most of the fun. Finding and buying the product of our dreams will produce but a fleeting moment of contentment. If shopping is our thing (our chosen means of goal attainment) this could lead to dysfunctional behaviour; if we are constantly setting new shopping goals to experience the fun of the “hunt,” the process could easily become addictive. This could lead to overspending, running up debt, and an unhappy situation that outweighs the pleasure obtained from shopping. We probably all know someone who falls into this category, or (horrors!) even recognise aspects of our own behaviour in the above scenario.
On a brighter note, it is interesting to consider the “best thing, worst thing” scenario in human affairs. Jonathan Haidt suggests that for many people the best thing that could happen to them would be a massive lottery win. It would bring freedom from so many cares and limitations, enabling the winner to live their dreams, help others, and live in comfort.
On the other hand, the “worst thing” scenario might involve a bad accident which left one paralysed from the neck down. The limitations would be so severe that most people believe they would rather be dead than live on in this state. Surprisingly, they are mistaken.
Research has shown that, a year after a lottery win or a catastrophic accident, happiness levels have returned to pretty much what they were beforehand. The lottery winner does have an initial surge in happiness as she buys a now home and car, quits her boring job, and eats better food. However, the biggest initial pleasure comes from the increase in wealth. As the lottery winner becomes accustomed to the new standard of living, happiness returns to baseline levels.
Something similar happens to the accident victim. At first he thinks his life is over and his happiness levels drop dramatically. However, like the lottery winner his mind is more sensitive to changes than to absolute levels, and after a few months he has begun to adapt to his new situation and is setting modest goals. He has nowhere to go but up, and as he works at his goals the positive effects of the progress principle kick in and he becomes happier.
There is a rather disturbing corollary to the three principles discussed so far: Why, if no matter what befalls us we return eventually to our baseline levels of happiness, do we live the way we do? If hard work and accumulating riches is not going to make us happier, why bother? And is there anything we can do to raise our levels of happiness?
These are important questions, because the quality of our lives is surely dependent on how happy we are. Fortunately, positive psychology has determined that happiness levels can be elevated by certain external factors. And, as we want you to have a happier life, next month we’ll tell you what they are.
__________________________________________________________________________________
References:
The Happiness Hypothesis, by Jonathan Haidt. Published by Arrow Books, 2006.
Some Uses of Happiness Data in Economics, by Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 1, Winter 2006.
