http://pos-psych.com/news/bridget-grenville-cleave/20080826990

Thanks for the replies everyone, very interesting stuff.

I think everyone agreed, in one way or another.

Above all else…
Guard your heart…
For it is…
The wellspring of life…

Proverbs 4:23

To answer the author’s question, why are we talking about happiness now? Because we can!

a) Suddenly psychology (cf Seligman), management (cf David Cooperrider) and psychiatry (cf Kay Jamison) are talking about the mechanisms underlying positive phenomena. An economist might say that we can now afford to attend to what is good and true rather than what is threatening and to be avoided.

b) Positive psychology is a form of complexity/chaos theory. We have empirical demonstrations in psychology (Fredrickson and Losada, 2005, American Psychologist), active research in psychology (Psychology Today, bottommost Self Development blog) and new management models (cf Gary Hamel and google Steve Jurvetson with keyword Hamel at Flickr).

c) The population will not put up with less – the rise of stakeholder influence and the resurgence of hope politics (as of last night “the choice of hope over fear” Michelle Obama).

The penultimate paragraph of the original post spells out the key psychological principles of happiness.

“A society that gives people choices, security, and a voice (in some measure) is the type of society that will maximise the happiness of its citizens. This idea is not novel – and it provides the fundamental motivation behind pretty much all social sciences.”

The key characteristics of a successful social organization are always
trust,
belonging and
personal control.
There are many models and variations on the theme as the author says starting with good old Maslow.

If we were to construct a linear model, wealth, happiness and the features of society would be three different sets of variables. You can argue which are mediators and moderators (hence the preference for non-linear dynamical models). They are evidently all necessary and rather in the category of motherhood and apple pie.

Economists might like to scour the Economist for an empirical study on voting behavior in Switzerland where there is direct democracy. People who vote (i.e., exercise control) are as happy as people one economic step higher. In simple terms, giving people control saves money! This is the essence of what is taught in management. If you want a successful organization, make sure the ordinary employee has control.

Quite obviously in competitive societies, there are winners and losers and as in every Olympic race, more disappointment than glee. It is obvious that the bottom half to two-thirds will be unhappy -bringing us back to economic and other policy – your territory.

There’s also decent evidence (Wolfers et al) that the evidence for happiness being very concave in income is wrong: happiness does continue to increase with income.

Here he discusses his research with Betsey Stevenson showing that there is no Easterlin Paradox. The Easterlin Paradox is the juxtaposition of three observations:

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

Here he discusses the new evidence that rich countries are happier than poor countries.

Here he discusses the historical evidence on the fact that rich countries are happier than poor ones and how this fact remained hidden in the data for several decades.

Here he discusses the question, Are Rich People Happier than Poor People?

Here he discusses the question, Will Raising the Incomes of All Raise the Happiness of All?

Here he goes, Delving Into Subjective Well-Being

A report in the New York Times suggests that Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All. Or is it just more evidence of the ongoing collapse of the Easterlin paradox. A quick summary of the main point of the article,

Economic growth, by itself, certainly isn’t enough to guarantee people’s well-being — which is Mr. Easterlin’s great contribution to economics. In this country, for instance, some big health care problems, like poor basic treatment of heart disease, don’t stem from a lack of sufficient resources. Recent research has also found that some of the things that make people happiest — short commutes, time spent with friends — have little to do with higher incomes.

Economic growth can also pay for investments in scientific research that lead to longer, healthier lives. It can allow trips to see relatives not seen in years or places never visited. When you’re richer, you can decide to work less — and spend more time with your friends.

By and large affluence is a pretty good deal.