definition happiness speech

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Happiness Speech

Happiness Speech for Students in English

The mental or emotional states of mind that include positive or pleasant emotions are expressed by a term called happiness. Research related to happiness has been conducted since the 1960s, in various disciplines that include social psychology, positive psychology, happiness economics, medical and clinical research. The only feeling loved by everyone. It can be achieved by enjoying the current life and accepting it as it is instead of thinking and trying to control the things which cannot be controlled. None of the feelings are under our control, whatever happens in life we have to just make a positive path and accept it. The goal in your life is to make the living worth which indirectly earns you happiness and pride. There are some values that can help us to keep happy that include friendship, love, and hobbies. The support from the people you love helps to create a positive environment. 

Speech on Secret of Happiness

Happiness has different definitions, generally described as positive emotions. Most people talk about happiness, when they talk about the happiness they mean about the current situation or they might be referring to the sense of happiness in how they feel about their overall life. Happiness is a broadly defined term where social scientists and psychologists use the term “Subjective-well being” to express the emotional state. There are two key components of subjective well-being, everyone expresses both negative and positive emotions whereas experiencing positive emotions can lead to happiness. The work they are doing, relationships, achievements, and some other things in life should bring the satisfaction that provides happiness. 

In happiness speech in English let us see the types of happiness:

Hedonia: It is also known as short-term happiness. Generally, it is referred to as pleasure. Leading the dream life, self-care, fulfilling the desires, sense of satisfaction, and experiencing enjoyment.

Eudaimonia: It is also known as long-term happiness. It is associated with completing the responsibilities, one should include the meaning that their life has meaning, purpose, and value. Investment in long-term goals. 

Long Speech on Happiness For Students

Many people will not invest their time or they don’t feel the need to think about what happiness means, but they have an idea when they are happy. But in this modern generation, it is the most important and essential thing to know about the meaning of happiness. According to some researchers, being happy or happy is the term used to describe the state of mind that expresses positive emotions such as joy, peace of mind, well-being, and many more positive vibrations. 

It is mentioned in the speech on secret of happiness about the types of happiness when you hear a joke or if you go through any funny incident then you laugh this leads to short term happiness that is for that moment or for a short period of time, instead if you keep laughing the entire day by remembering that particular joke then it is not termed as happiness. Thus most people like to have long-term happiness, it will be experienced only when the hard work done by you is paid off. Humans are often freckled-minded people, they will not have a constant mind or they will not concentrate on one particular thing, their mind changes often. People find happiness in materialistic things, these things include fancy foods, outfits, computers, some others. But it is important to know that these materialistic things provide short-term happiness.

Due to the current crisis, it is difficult to always stay happy, it is said that “An Idle Mind is the Devil's Workshop”. It is difficult to spend most of the time at home, we will get bored and frustrated easily. So instead of being silent or inactive one should always keep themselves busy by doing some work, learning something new, or should look forward to life. By following this they can be out of having negative thoughts. Living happily is a tough task. All should need an attitude to accomplish the task thus it is required to follow or including a good habit is necessary. 

In the speech on happiness in life, happiness that we strive to earn is the one that cannot be earned by anybody else, it should be defined by ourselves. What other people think is right affects the personal judgments of an individual. Being in an unfavourable situation or environment for a moment affects the mood. Facing a depressive environment can make an individual ill both physically and mentally. Unhappy people always have to face problems such as anxiety, stress, depression, or insomnia. One can easily or by adding some effort can overcome physical illness, but it is very difficult to overcome from mental illness. 

Happiness cannot be achieved at one go or overnight, there are no such switches that are turned on to be happy instantly. Achieving happiness completely depends on pursuing our goals. The path of happiness can include these things, regular exercise, caring for people, living in a peaceful and pleasant environment. It is often said that sharing our worries or negative thoughts with our loved ones can relieve us from stress.

Short Speech on Happiness For Students

When we speak about happiness positive emotions are the ones that come into our minds. None of the people can make us happy, we ourselves have to take care of the state of our mind. True happiness can only come when we realise the need for it. One must always be grateful to God for giving the desired things. Some people find happiness in small things that happen in their life, whereas some people find it in luxurious life, fancy foods, etc. 

Doing what you love, being how you want to be provides enough happiness and confidence. Along with making ourselves happy, we can also make the people around us happy by loving them selflessly. This thought will make our surroundings or people around us happy; this indirectly boosts our happiness. Our flaws can be accepted by us as we know the reason for it, but the acceptance of those flaws by other people makes you the most loved person, this what gives real happiness to a person.

Happiness Motivational Speech:

The more we try to get happier the more it slips away from us, this directly means that happiness is not the thing that can be found in materialistic things but it is the thing that depends on one’s mental state. Here are some inspirational stories that let us see them go through them.

There was a boy and he had a very wealthy family. One day the boy’s father took him on a country trip. The main aim of the father was to show his son how poor people lead their life. They found a farm of a poor family and they spent some days on that farm. After that trip, the father enquired about the trip with the son, and the boy replied “It was great”. The father asked the son whether he had observed how the poor people had led their life, and asked him to describe deeply what he had observed. The boy replied by comparing it to the life he was leading as a boy of a wealthy family, he said that “we have a dog whereas they have four of them, we have a swimming pool to spend time and they have a big river which has no end. We have a very expensive lantern to provide light whereas they have numerous stars above them at night. We have a paved area, where they have a whole horizon. We have a limited amount of land, where they have endless fields. We buy the food, whereas they grow the food. We fence our house for the high protection but they don’t need any fencing to their houses as their friends support and help them in protection”. 

By listening to the words of the boy the father was stunned and he couldn’t even speak a word. Then at the end, the boy added saying thank you to his father, he said that “ Thank you for letting me know how poor we are”. This speech on true happiness inspires us in such a way that happiness is not found in materialistic things instead it is dependent on love, friendship, and freedom.  

Let us see another story,

There was a class of around sixty students, once the teacher told the kids that they are going to play a game and the teacher gave one balloon to each of the students. She then asked the students to blow it up, the students did that then she asked them to write the name of the respective student on the balloon which they have in their hands. The students did so, then the teacher asked them to throw the balloons into the empty classroom as per the teacher’s guidelines they did that. Now she asked the students to collect their own balloons which they have written their name on in a minute. They started searching for their balloons and the room was messed up but at the end of the time, none of them got the balloons in their hands and all of them were upset, then the teacher gave one more balloon to each of them and asked them to follow the same procedure and they again threw the balloons to an empty room. This time the teacher asked the students to get the balloons whichever they found and then they had to return them to the person whose name was written on them, now the students have got their balloons in a fraction of seconds, this time the students were very happy. 

Now the teacher said that she conducted this just to inform the students that how important it is to help someone in their life, helping someone can make the people happy which makes the surrounding happy. This happiness is indirectly gained to each one of them.

Conclusion:

We have seen a happy speech, an inspirational story, and the reasons and causes of being happy. Thus we can conclude that being happy doesn’t only involve the happiness of a single person but it is the family or the surroundings that should be happy or pleasant. Happiness cannot be found in a single situation or it cannot be found instantly; it is to be found in one’s state of mind. Everyone deserves to be happy.

FAQs on Happiness Speech

1. How is happiness important in life?

Happiness is one of the fundamental goals in life. Everyone is constantly striving to achieve happiness through different means. Being happy can be a state of mind which expresses positive emotions like the peace of mind, joy, and various other positive vibrations. Life tends to be up and down as people experience a range of emotions in their lives however the quest is always to find happiness through the experience of positive emotions and it is one of the fundamental requirements in life. 

2. What are the different factors that have an impact on happiness?

There are several factors in life that play a major role and have a big impact on the overall emotions that a person experiences. These emotions either translate to happiness or otherwise. Some of these factors include the immediate environment of the individual, social and personal care, professional achievements, well being of friends or family, and the overall social bubble of the person. If the majority of these factors are positive, a person tends to experience happiness.

3. What are the different things that can help us achieve happiness?

Some of the different factors or things that can help attain short-term or long-term happiness include love, friendship, and hobbies. Indulging in one’s hobbies is an enriching experience that brings enjoyment, satisfaction, and a feeling of positive emotions. This translates to happiness. This is why clinical psychologists often suggest people indulge in their favorite hobbies. Similarly, love and friendship are major experiences that bring positive energy and contribute massively to happiness. 

4. How can I refer to the Vedantu notes “Happiness speech for students in English”?

The Vedantu notes on “Happiness speech for students in English” can be downloaded from the app or the website. These notes are offered in PDF format and can be downloaded for free. Once you navigate to the relevant page, you can find the “Download PDF” button, and when you click on it, the PDF file containing the notes will be downloaded on your device. 

5. What can I expect from the Vedantu notes on “Happiness speech for students in English?

The Vedantu notes on “Happiness speech for students in English” provide a comprehensive analysis of the different aspects associated with happiness. These notes provide an in-depth summary of the different theories and factors that are associated with the eventual feeling or emotion of happiness. The notes also provide a short speech on happiness, a long speech on happiness, a motivational speech on happiness, and then provide a summary of the concept.  

Speech on Happiness for Students and Children

Speech on happiness.

A very warm Good Morning to all the teachers and students present in the auditorium. I am here to deliver a speech on Happiness. What do you understand by the term happiness? Is it something that depends on external factors? How can one be happy in a true way?

Source: pixabay.com

Well, happiness is a term which depicts an optimistic mental state. Happiness can have different meanings for different people. Some may find happiness in earning money and be called wealthy. However, others give importance to good health for being happy. Some others may feel content having good jobs and high repute. Others may consider the peace of mind and unity with the Almighty as the source of true happiness.

Get the Huge list of 100+ Speech Topics here

Happiness Is External or Internal?

True Happiness is something comes from deep inside. It comes from our hearts. Although we feel that material things or pleasures can make us happy, it is not true. A person who is wealthy may or may not be happy. However, a person who is happy is always wealthy.

Happiness reflects one’s positive attitude towards life. Such a person strongly believes that whatever happens is for good. Even if he fails in life, he or she doesn’t blame destiny for it. Also,  such a person doesn’t lose hope. He is always hopeful.

An optimistic person will always be happy. Moreover, such a person will be able to find pleasure even in the pain. Also, a happy person doesn’t depend on others or external factors to make him happy. He will manage to be happy even in the worst situations.

Thus, we can conclude that happiness is an internal factor. It can be achieved by self-realization. Only by seeking unity with the Almighty, can one find true happiness.

How to be Happy?

No one can make us happy. We only are responsible for our happiness. Happiness is a choice. True happiness comes when we realize our oneness with God. In order to be happy, one must be grateful to God for the many things he has given us.

We should be happy for such a precious gift called life. Furthermore, It is not necessary to have many big things to be happy. A grateful person finds happiness even in small things in life. We should look at people below us and be thankful. Also, we should be grateful for the eyes. We can see the beautiful world around us.

Moreover, we must be satisfied in life. Hence, to be happy, we should lessen the burden of desires and expectations. We should not always crave for things. If our desires would not be met, we would become sad. Thus, optimism, self-realization, gratitude, and satisfaction are the major keys to happiness.

Thus, to be happy, one must first understand what real happiness is. Otherwise, one would spend his whole life in search of happiness. Also, we must not look for any special occasion to be happy. We must find joy in each and every moment of life. Your happiness should not be dependent on people or circumstances. Your happiness is what you choose. If we are happy, we could spread happiness everywhere. Happiness adds to the beauty of a person. Also, a happy person never gets disappointed even in adverse situations. Thus, be happy and enjoy life.

Read Essays for Students and Children here !

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Speech for Students

• Speech on India for Students and Children
• Speech on Mother for Students and Children
• Speech on Air Pollution for Students and Children
• Speech about Life for Students and Children
• Speech on Disaster Management for Students and Children
• Speech on Internet for Students and Children
• Speech on Generation Gap for Students and Children
• Speech on Indian Culture for Students and Children
• Speech on Sports for Students and Children
• Speech on Water for Students and Children

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

this was very helpful it saved my life i got this at the correct time very nice and helpful

This Helped Me With My Speech!!!

I can give it 100 stars for the speech it is amazing i love it.

Its amazing!!

Great !!!! It is an advanced definition and detail about Pollution. The word limit is also sufficient. It helped me a lot.

This is very good

Very helpful in my speech

Oh my god, this saved my life. You can just copy and paste it and change a few words. I would give this 4 out of 5 stars, because I had to research a few words. But my teacher didn’t know about this website, so amazing.

Tomorrow is my exam . This is Very helpfull

It’s really very helpful

yah it’s is very cool and helpful for me… a lot of 👍👍👍

Very much helpful and its well crafted and expressed. Thumb’s up!!!

wow so amazing it helped me that one of environment infact i was given a certificate

check it out travel and tourism voucher

thank you very much

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Speech Topics For Kids
• Speech On Happiness

Speech on Happiness

Everything human beings do is aimed at happiness. The reasons for happiness, however, differ from individual to individual. Some people find happiness even in the smallest of things. Helping an old man cross the road, sharing an umbrella with someone who is getting wet, buying a meal for a hungry kid, seeing a fully-blossomed flower, spotting a rainbow, going for a ride — all of these are just some things that can make one happy.

Learn more about happiness and how to prepare a speech on happiness in this article.

Table of Contents

Top 10 quotes to use in a speech on happiness, short speech on happiness in 100 words, short speech on happiness and mindset, speech on happiness – how to be a happier person, frequently asked questions on happiness.

• “There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved.” – George Sand.
• “Happiness is not the absence of problems; it’s the ability to deal with them.” – Steve Maraboli.
• “The secret of happiness is freedom, the secret of freedom is courage.” – Carrie Jones.
• “There is no happiness like that of being loved by your fellow creatures and feeling that your presence is an addition to their comfort.” – Charlotte Bronte.
• “If you want happiness for an hour, take a nap. If you want happiness for a day, go fishing. If you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime, help someone else.” – Chinese Proverb.
• “Happiness is only real when shared.” – Jon Krakauer.
• “Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt.
• “True happiness is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keller.
• “The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance; the wise grows it under his feet.” – James Oppenheim.
• “Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so.” – John Stuart Mill.

Sample Speeches on Happiness

A few samples of speeches on happiness are given below. Go through them, utilise the resource to prepare a speech, and try to give a happy vibe to yourself and to others.

Where is the hidden key to happiness? Have you ever tried to seek it, spent hours looking for it, and failed? It’s time to realise that the key to happiness is within you. “Happiness is not something ready-made. It comes from your own actions.” These are the words said by the Dalai Lama. Do not waste your time searching for happiness; it is not going to be with you unless you do something to get it. Happiness that a person enjoys is completely based on the efforts put by that particular person. People or nature associated with the individual may contribute to enhancing happiness, but its core is within the person itself.

“The search for happiness is one of the chief sources of unhappiness.” Do you agree with this statement by Eric Hoffer? Is it a thing that has to be searched? No, happiness is an emotion that has to be created by the person itself. Do not depend on others for it.

Ask yourself about the things that make you happy, list them down and try to follow them. As these are the things that make you alive, value this list of happiness more than anything else. Self-love helps in developing a positive mentality. By loving oneself, one can reduce stress and anxiety, and one can experience peacefulness in life.

Just like the words of Don Marquis, “Happiness is the interval between periods of unhappiness.” It is something that we all have to pursue to achieve. Even the happiest of individuals can feel distressed from time to time.

• Exercise regularly. Physical activities are good for mental and physical refreshment. It makes an individual stay active and reduces stress, anxiety, and depression.

Try to enjoy every little thing in your life. All the little things happening in our lives matter a lot. As Arthur Conan Doyle said, “The little things are infinitely the most important”. Accept the fact that it is the smallest things that make the biggest differences. When appreciating small things, you focus your attention even on the little things that nurture and sustain you in life.

Show gratitude in your life. By being grateful for things that an individual has in life, one will start feeling happier. Gratitude can be called a divine positive attitude; it purifies us spiritually. By being grateful, one realises about things that make one’s life worth living. A person’s gratitude can be developed through regular practice – sit down peacefully for some minutes and think about five to ten things that you are grateful for.

Try to find a sense of purpose in your life. Researchers have found that individuals with a sense of purpose in life have better well-being and a more fulfilled life. Finding the ultimate meaning of our lives is not easy, but one can develop a sense of purpose by setting goals and a direction in life.

Try to follow these tips in your life, believe in yourself and always be happy.

Where is the hidden key to happiness?

The key to happiness is within you. Just like the words of the Dalai Lama, “Happiness is not something ready-made. It comes from your own actions.”

How to be a happier person?

• Try to enjoy every little thing in your life.
• Show gratitude. By being grateful for things that an individual has in life, one will start feeling happier.
• Try to find a sense of purpose. Researchers have found that individuals with a sense of purpose in life have better well-being and a more fulfilling life.

Why is self-love important for being happy?

Self-love plays a very important role in making a person happy. Self-love helps in developing a positive mentality. By loving oneself, one can reduce stress and anxiety, and can experience peacefulness in life.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Happiness?

Defining Happiness, and How to Become Happier

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

Verywell/ Jiaqi Zhou

How to Cultivate Happiness

How to be a happier person.

Happiness is something that people seek to find, yet what defines happiness can vary from one person to the next. Typically, happiness is an emotional state characterized by feelings of joy, satisfaction, contentment, and fulfillment. While happiness has many different definitions, it is often described as involving positive emotions and life satisfaction. 

When most people talk about the true meaning of happiness, they might be talking about how they feel in the present moment or referring to a more general sense of how they feel about life overall.

Because happiness tends to be such a broadly defined term, psychologists and other social scientists typically use the term ' subjective well-being ' when they talk about this emotional state. Just as it sounds, subjective well-being tends to focus on an individual's overall personal feelings about their life in the present.  

Two key components of happiness (or subjective well-being) are:

• The balance of emotions: Everyone experiences both positive and negative emotions, feelings, and moods. Happiness is generally linked to experiencing more positive feelings than negative ones.
• Life satisfaction: This relates to how satisfied you feel with different areas of your life including your relationships, work, achievements, and other things that you consider important.

Another definition of happiness comes from the ancient philosopher Aristotle, who suggested that happiness is the one human desire, and all other human desires exist as a way to obtain happiness. He believed that there were four levels of happiness: happiness from immediate gratification, from comparison and achievement, from making positive contributions, and from achieving fulfillment. 

Happiness, Aristotle suggested, could be achieved through the golden mean, which involves finding a balance between deficiency and excess.

Signs of Happiness

While perceptions of happiness may be different from one person to the next, there are some key signs that psychologists look for when measuring and assessing happiness.

Some key signs of happiness include:

• Feeling like you are living the life you wanted
• Going with the flow and a willingness to take life as it comes
• Feeling that the conditions of your life are good
• Enjoying positive, healthy relationships with other people
• Feeling that you have accomplished (or will accomplish) what you want in life
• Feeling satisfied with your life
• Feeling positive more than negative
• Being open to new ideas and experiences
• Practicing self-care and treating yourself with kindness and compassion
• Experiencing gratitude
• Feeling that you are living life with a sense of meaning and purpose
• Wanting to share your happiness and joy with others

One important thing to remember is that happiness isn't a state of constant euphoria . Instead, happiness is an overall sense of experiencing more positive emotions than negative ones.

Happy people still feel the whole range of human emotions—anger, frustrastion, boredom, loneliness, and even sadness—from time to time. But even when faced with discomfort, they have an underlying sense of optimism that things will get better, that they can deal with what is happening, and that they will be able to feel happy again.

Types of Happiness

There are many different ways of thinking about happiness. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle made a distinction between two different kinds of happiness: hedonia and eudaimonia.

• Hedonia: Hedonic happiness is derived from pleasure. It is most often associated with doing what feels good, self-care, fulfilling desires, experiencing enjoyment, and feeling a sense of satisfaction.
• Eudaimonia: This type of happiness is derived from seeking virtue and meaning. Important components of eudaimonic well-being including feeling that your life has meaning, value, and purpose. It is associated more with fulfilling responsibilities, investing in long-term goals, concern for the welfare of other people, and living up to personal ideals.

Hedonia and eudemonia are more commonly known today in psychology as pleasure and meaning, respectively. More recently, psychologists have suggested the addition of the third component that relates to engagement . These are feelings of commitment and participation in different areas of life.

Research suggests that happy people tend to rank pretty high on eudaimonic life satisfaction and better than average on their hedonic life satisfaction.  

All of these can play an important role in the overall experience of happiness, although the relative value of each can be highly subjective. Some activities may be both pleasurable and meaningful, while others might skew more one way or the other.

For example, volunteering for a cause you believe in might be more meaningful than pleasurable. Watching your favorite tv show, on the other hand, might rank lower in meaning and higher on pleasure.

Some types of happiness that may fall under these three main categories include:

• Joy: A often relatively brief feeling that is felt in the present moment
• Excitement: A happy feeling that involves looking forward to something with positive anticipation
• Gratitude: A positive emotion that involves being thankful and appreciative
• Pride: A feeling of satisfaction in something that you have accomplished
• Optimism: This is a way of looking at life with a positive, upbeat outlook
• Contentment: This type of happiness involves a sense of satisfaction

While some people just tend to be naturally happier, there are things that you can do to cultivate your sense of happiness. 

Pursue Intrinsic Goals 

Achieving goals that you are intrinsically motivated to pursue, particularly ones that are focused on personal growth and community, can help boost happiness. Research suggests that pursuing these types of intrinsically-motivated goals can increase happiness more than pursuing extrinsic goals like gaining money or status.  

Enjoy the Moment

Studies have found that people tend to over earn—they become so focused on accumulating things that they lose track of actually enjoying what they are doing.  

So, rather than falling into the trap of mindlessly accumulating to the detriment of your own happiness, focus on practicing gratitude for the things you have and enjoying the process as you go. 

Reframe Negative Thoughts

When you find yourself stuck in a pessimistic outlook or experiencing negativity, look for ways that you can reframe your thoughts in a more positive way. 

People have a natural negativity bias , or a tendency to pay more attention to bad things than to good things. This can have an impact on everything from how you make decisions to how you form impressions of other people. Discounting the positive—a cognitive distortion where people focus on the negative and ignore the positive—can also contribute to negative thoughts.

Reframing these negative perceptions isn't about ignoring the bad. Instead, it means trying to take a more balanced, realistic look at events. It allows you to notice patterns in your thinking and then challenge negative thoughts.

Impact of Happiness

Why is happiness so important? Happiness has been shown to predict positive outcomes in many different areas of life including mental well-being, physical health, and overall longevity.

• Positive emotions increase satisfaction with life.
• Happiness helps people build stronger coping skills and emotional resources.
• Positive emotions are linked to better health and longevity. One study found that people who experienced more positive emotions than negative ones were more likely to have survived over a 13 year period.
• Positive feelings increase resilience. Resilience helps people better manage stress and bounce back better when faced with setbacks. For example, one study found that happier people tend to have lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol and that these benefits tend to persist over time.
• People who report having a positive state of well-being are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors such as eating fruits and vegetables and engaging in regular physical exercise.
• Being happy may make help you get sick less often. Happier mental states are linked to increased immunity.

Some people seem to have a naturally higher baseline for happiness—one large-scale study of more than 2,000 twins suggested that around 50% of overall life satisfaction was due to genetics, 10% to external events, and 40% to individual activities.

So while you might not be able to control what your “base level” of happiness is, there are things that you can do to make your life happier and more fulfilling. Even the happiest of individuals can feel down from time to time and happiness is something that all people need to consciously pursue.

Cultivate Strong Relationships

Social support is an essential part of well-being. Research has found that good social relationships are the strongest predictor of happiness. Having positive and supportive connections with people you care about can provide a buffer against stress, improve your health, and help you become a happier person.

In the Harvard Study of Adult Development, a longitudinal study that looked at participants over 80 years, researchers found that relationships and how happy people are in those relationships strongly impacted overall health.

So if you are trying to improve your happiness, cultivating solid social connections is a great place to start. Consider deepening your existing relationships and explore ways to make new friends. 

Get Regular Exercise

Exercise is good for both your body and mind. Physical activity is linked to a range of physical and psychological benefits including improved mood. Numerous studies have shown that regular exercise may play a role in warding off symptoms of depression, but evidence also suggests that it may also help make people happier, too.

In one analysis of past research on the connection between physical activity and happiness, researchers found a consistent positive link.  

Even a little bit of exercise produces a happiness boost—people who were physically active for as little as 10 minutes a day or who worked out only once a week had higher levels of happiness than people who never exercised.

Show Gratitude

In one study, participants were asked to engage in a writing exercise for 10 to 20 minutes each night before bed.   Some were instructed to write about daily hassles, some about neutral events, and some about things they were grateful for. The results found that people who had written about gratitude had increase positive emotions, increased subjective happiness, and improve life satisfaction.

As the authors of the study suggest, keeping a gratitude list is a relatively easy, affordable, simple, and pleasant way to boost your mood. Try setting aside a few minutes each night to write down or think about things in your life that you are grateful for.

Find a Sense of Purpose

Research has found that people who feel like they have a purpose have better well-being and feel more fulfilled.   A sense of purpose involves seeing your life as having goals, direction, and meaning. It may help improve happiness by promoting healthier behaviors. 

Some things you can do to help find a sense of purpose include:

• Explore your interests and passions
• Engage in prosocial and altruistic causes
• Work to address injustices
• Look for new things you might want to learn more about

This sense of purpose is influenced by a variety of factors, but it is also something that you can cultivate. It involves finding a goal that you care deeply about that will lead you to engage in productive, positive actions in order to work toward that goal.

Press Play for Advice On Reaching Your Dreams

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast , featuring best-selling author Dave Hollis, shares how to create your best life. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Challenges of Finding Happiness

While seeking happiness is important, there are times when the pursuit of life satisfaction falls short. Some challenges to watch for include:

Valuing the Wrong Things

Money may not be able to buy happiness, but there is research that spending money on things like experiences can make you happier than spending it on material possessions. 

One study, for example, found that spending money on things that buy time—such as spending money on time-saving services—can increase happiness and life satisfaction.  

Rather than overvaluing things such as money, status, or material possessions, pursuing goals that result in more free time or enjoyable experiences may have a higher happiness reward.

Not Seeking Social Support

Social support means having friends and loved ones that you can turn to for support. Research has found that perceived social support plays an important role in subjective well-being. For example, one study found that perceptions of social support were responsible for 43% of a person's level of happiness.  

It is important to remember that when it comes to social support, quality is more important than quantity. Having just a few very close and trusted friends will have a greater impact on your overall happiness than having many casual acquaintances.

Thinking of Happiness as an Endpoint

Happiness isn’t a goal that you can simply reach and be done with. It is a constant pursuit that requires continual nurturing and sustenance.

One study found that people who tend to value happiness most also tended to feel the least satisfied with their lives.   Essentially, happiness becomes such a lofty goal that it becomes virtually unattainable. 

“Valuing happiness could be self-defeating because the more people value happiness, the more likely they will feel disappointed,” suggest the authors of the study.

Perhaps the lesson is to not make something as broadly defined as “happiness” your goal. Instead, focus on building and cultivating the sort of life and relationships that bring fulfillment and satisfaction to your life. 

It is also important to consider how you personally define happiness. Happiness is a broad term that means different things to different people. Rather than looking at happiness as an endpoint, it can be more helpful to think about what happiness really means to you and then work on small things that will help you become happier. This can make achieving these goals more manageable and less overwhelming.

History of Happiness

Happiness has long been recognized as a critical part of health and well-being. The "pursuit of happiness" is even given as an inalienable right in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Our understanding of what will bring happiness, however, has shifted over time.

Psychologists have also proposed a number of different theories to explain how people experience and pursue happiness. These theories include:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The hierarchy of needs suggests that people are motivated to pursue increasingly complex needs. Once more basic needs are fulfilled, people are then motivated by more psychological and emotional needs.

At the peak of the hierarchy is the need for self-actualization, or the need to achieve one's full potential. The theory also stresses the importance of peak experiences or transcendent moments in which a person feels deep understanding, happiness, and joy. 

Positive Psychology

The pursuit of happiness is central to the field of positive psychology . Psychologists who study positive psychology are interested in learning ways to increase positivity and helping people live happier, more satisfying lives. 

Rather than focusing on mental pathologies, the field instead strives to find ways to help people, communities, and societies improve positive emotions and achieve greater happiness.

Finley K, Axner M, Vrooman K, Tse D. Ideal levels of prosocial involvement in relation to momentary affect and eudaimonia: Exploring the golden mean . Innov Aging . 2020;4(Suppl 1):614. doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.2083

Kringelbach ML, Berridge KC. The neuroscience of happiness and pleasure .  Soc Res (New York) . 2010;77(2):659-678.

Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework; Committee on National Statistics; Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council; Stone AA, Mackie C, editors. Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).

Lee MA, Kawachi I. The keys to happiness: Associations between personal values regarding core life domains and happiness in South Korea . PLoS One . 2019;14(1):e0209821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209821

Hsee CK, Zhang J, Cai CF, Zhang S. Overearning . Psychol Sci . 2013;24(6):852-9

Carstensen LL, Turan B, Scheibe S, et al. Emotional experience improves with age: evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling . Psychol Aging . 2011;26(1):21‐33. doi:10.1037/a0021285

Steptoe A, Wardle J. Positive affect and biological function in everyday life . Neurobiol Aging . 2005;26 Suppl 1:108‐112. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.08.016

Sapranaviciute-Zabazlajeva L, Luksiene D, Virviciute D, Bobak M, Tamosiunas A. L ink between healthy lifestyle and psychological well-being in Lithuanian adults aged 45-72: a cross-sectional study . BMJ Open . 2017;7(4):e014240. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014240

Costanzo ES, Lutgendorf SK, Kohut ML, et al. Mood and cytokine response to influenza virus in older adults . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2004;59(12):1328‐1333. doi:10.1093/gerona/59.12.1328

Lyubomirsky S, Sheldon KM, Schkade D. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change . Review of General Psychology. 2005;9 (2):111–131. doi:0.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

The Harvard Gazette. Good genes are nice, but joy is better .

Zhang Z, Chen W. A systematic review of the relationship between physical activity and happiness . J Happiness Stud 20, 1305–1322 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9976-0

Cunha LF, Pellanda LC, Reppold CT. Positive psychology and gratitude interventions: a randomized clinical trial . Front Psychol . 2019;10:584. Published 2019 Mar 21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00584

Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia . Psychother Psychosom . 2014;83(1):10‐28. doi:10.1159/000353263

Whillans AV, Dunn EW, Smeets P, Bekkers R, Norton MI. Buying time promotes happiness .  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2017;114(32):8523‐8527. doi:10.1073/pnas.1706541114

Gulacti F. The effect of perceived social support on subjective well-being . Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences . 2010;2(2):3844-3849. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.602

Mauss IB, Tamir M, Anderson CL, Savino NS. Can seeking happiness make people unhappy? [corrected] Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness [published correction appears in Emotion. 2011 Aug;11(4):767]. Emotion . 2011;11(4):807‐815. doi:10.1037/a0022010

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

The science of happiness (w/ Laurie Santos) (Transcript)

Listen along.

How to Be a Better Human The science of happiness (w/ Laurie Santos) January 23, 2023

[00:00:00] Chris Duffy: You are listening to How to Be a Better Human. I am your host, Chris Duffy. Here's a strange thing that I have noticed about my own brain. Often, the times that I feel the happiest are where I have a lot of irons in the fire. There's all these possibilities, and there's this sense that exciting things might happen.

But the thing that's weird is that I often feel happier in that moment where the irons are in the fire than when they actually come out and become a real thing, right? Like even if I have accomplished something that feels really big and special, like we finished recording a season of this show, or I did a big live show and it went well, I crash so hard that night or the next day as soon as I've done the thing that I thought that I really wanted to do, it's like I have a happiness hangover. I'm confused, to be honest, about why it is that accomplishing the things that I thought I wanted to accomplish often don't make me feel very happy at all.

In my experience, happiness is kind of a slippery fish. When I try my hardest to grab a hold of happiness, it just flops outta my fingers and slides away. But, when I ignore the fish and I focus on other things, sometimes outta the corner of my eye, I see that, hey, that happiness fish is swimming right around next to me all over again.

Our guest today is Laurie Santos. Laurie started The Happiness Lab podcast to help people understand how science could help them lead more satisfying lives. And I promise you, I swear Laurie is going to use zero fish-based metaphors to do that. Laurie's podcast grew out of her work teaching at Yale, where she started a course called Psychology and the Good Life. It's also known as the Happiness Course. Since then, Laurie has taken the happiness course online at Coursera, where thousands of people enrolled in the program. But then when the pandemic and the lockdowns came, a time when so many people were reassessing what was truly important in their lives, that number shot up into the millions.

But a part of Laurie's interest in exploring human happiness didn't actually come from working with people at all. It came from working with animals. Laurie gave a TED talk explaining her research with monkeys. I love this clip.

[00:02:00] Laurie Santos: And because we started this work around the time of the financial collapse, around the time when foreclosures were hitting the news, we said, “Hmm, maybe we should actually start in the financial domain. Maybe we should look at monkey's economic decisions and try to see if they see, do the same kinds of dumb things that we do.”

Of course, that's when we hit a sort of second problem, a little bit more methodological, which is that maybe you guys don't know, but monkeys don't actually use money. You know, you haven't met them. This is why, you know, they're not in the queue behind you at the grocery store, at the ATM. You know, they don't do this stuff. So now we faced, you know, a little bit of a problem here. How are we gonna actually ask monkeys about money if they don't actually use it? So he said, well, maybe we should just actually just suck it up and teach monkeys how to use money. And so that's just what we did.

[00:02:42] Chris Duffy: When we return, we will find out more about what Laurie learned from animals about our most deeply embedded attitudes towards happiness and what we can each do to be happier in our own lives.

[00:03:01] Chris Duffy: Okay, we are back. We're talking about what it means to be happy with Laurie Santos.

[00:03:07] Laurie Santos: Hey, I'm Laurie Santos. I'm a professor of psychology at Yale University and host of The Happiness Lab podcast.

[00:03:13] Chris Duffy: So, Laurie, I, I first heard about your research that was basically like having monkeys build a, an economy based on different types of fruit.

[00:03:20] Laurie Santos: Yeah, I mean, it was pretty good description actually. Um, so we wanted to see, one, whether or not some of the standard economic biases that humans chose were shared with monkeys too. And so we taught monkeys how to use a kind of form of currency, these little metal tokens that they traded with humans for food.

And that mean, meant that we could put monkeys into kind of really simple economic experiments. Really asked them their preferences about things like risk and, like, whether or not they paid attention to how much food they were getting and so on.

And what we found was the monkeys were pretty rational in all the spots that humans were rational. But they also showed all the same irrational biases that humans tended to show. They were, they overpaid attention to risk, and they kind of were, had this tendency to frame what they were getting in terms of gains and losses, which is the kind of thing that leads humans astray.

[00:04:04] Chris Duffy: And one of the big things from the study that has just kind of always stuck in my head is that there were a lot of monkeys who were totally happy with the fruit that they were getting until they saw that a different monkey was getting more fruit or better fruit. And then all of a sudden they became furious and didn't like the things that had made them happy just moments before.

[00:04:21] Laurie Santos: Yeah. I mean, this, this was actually some lovely work by Sarah Brosnan who used really similar kinds of studies with, with her group of monkeys, and it’s, an, yet another bias that we tend to show, right? Which is that, that we tend to socially compare ourselves with others. So even if what we're getting is perfectly fine, as, as soon as we see that somebody else is getting something that's better than we are getting, all of a sudden we're unhappy with it, and, and this has a really strong connection to happiness and, and subjective wellbeing, right?

Because we’re, like, doing well in terms of got a roof over our head, you know, food on the table and so on. But we're so prone to be seeing what's going on with other people, and it can really negatively affect our happiness, even when in cases when we're objectively doing really well.

[00:04:59] Chris Duffy: Is that part of the bridge of what got you into human happiness? I, I wonder if, if seeing how animals, how it's kind of hardwired into many of us to, to have these things that make us unhappy, that we wish we could overcome, was, was part of the seed of what brought you into happiness in the first place?

[00:05:15] Laurie Santos: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think one of the reasons I was always so fascinated with work in monkeys is because a lot of times we, we get focused on “Oh, humans, we do things so amazingly well. We have all this technology and language and this amazing culture. We're so different than other animals.” But when I look to humans, what, what I saw generally was, yeah, you know, we're, we're doing great. You know, we're having this podcast, no other animal, no bonobo is doing that right now. Right?

But we're also so prone to error. We're so prone to bias. We're so prone to not appreciating what we have. You know, the take that I, I bring to my students and, and that I talk about a lot on my podcast is this idea that our minds lie to us when it comes to happiness, right? We have these intuitions about the sorts of things that would make us happy, but in practice, a lot of those intuitions the research shows are wrong.

And so I think the connection with the monkey work is recognizing how deep some of these errors go and that we might have errors when it comes to happiness as well.

[00:06:07] Chris Duffy: You teach at a school where there are so many driven students, right? There are students who are high achievers who have gotten into one of the most prestigious universities in the world. So you, in some ways, you would think like, you've done it, you should be happy. But I, I know from listening to other interviews that you've done that one of the things that you really found was that your students were really unhappy, kind of profoundly so.

[00:06:29] Laurie Santos: Yeah, and I saw this, you know, in a really acute way in this new role that I took on on campus. So I've been teaching at Yale for now about 20 years, which makes me feel very old. So I saw students in the classroom and in my lab, but I didn't really get to know them really well. All that changed when I took on a new role at Yale where I became a Head of College on campus. So this is a role where I, I li—physically live with students.

Like, my house is in a quad with students. I eat with them in the dining hall and so on. And that was where I got to see this college student mental health crisis up close and personally. You know, particularly acute at Yale because as you've said, Yale students, these Ivy League kids that are incredibly driven and so on.

But I think a shocking thing that I realized is that it's not just at Yale. In fact, there's lots of evidence that just nationally, students are really struggling. So nationally right now, college students report being too depressed to function; they're lonely. They're overwhelmingly anxious. And nationally, right now, more than 1 in 10 students has seriously considered suicide in the last year, right?

This is not just a couple snowflakes in the parlance of, you know, I think what the media talks about, right? This is a real national health crisis. I realized, you know, I really wanna do something about this. Also as educators, I think we’re not really fulfilling our educational mission until we address this, right? Like students too depressed to function most days. Like they're not learning whatever we're teaching them if we're teaching them, I don't know, Shakespeare or computer science, like they're not like retaining this, just memory-wise. They, their brains can't possibly pick up on this information if they're feeling so depressed and anxious.

And so, that was kind of, more the origin story was to realize: we gotta do something about this. You know, I think my field of psychology has a lot of answers for the kinds of things you can do to feel better, right? Things you can do to not feel so stressed and depressed and anxious. And so I said, well, let me develop a whole class where I teach students all these strategies. Let me kind of give them, you know, the party line of what my field says about things you can do to feel better and hope that they can put these things into practice themselves.

[00:08:14] Chris Duffy: Well, when we're talking about college students feeling too depressed to function, when we're talking about 1 in 10 students in the classroom thinking about suicide, having self-harm thoughts, how do you walk the line between the science of happiness and trying to get that out to people and not making people feel bad that they're not already happy?

Which I, to be clear, I don't think you do, but I think a lot of the, like, “You should just be happy” framework that's out in the, the world sometimes does that, is like this toxic positivity side. So, how do you personally think about, like, walking that line?

[00:08:47] Laurie Santos: Yeah, no. Toxic positivity is real and I think it, it honestly, I think it stems from yet another myth that we have about happiness, right? Which is that a good life means being happy all the time, right? If I'm feeling sad or frustrated or angry or anxious or whatever, I've done something wrong, right? And I need to fix it. And I think this is a myth, right? Emotions are these signals that are telling our body what we should be doing in the future and how we should behave in the future.

And negative emotions are an incredibly important signal, right? Your sadness is telling you that there's something amiss. Your loneliness is telling you that you might need to seek out social connection. Your anger is telling you that something is wrong, that there's an injustice out there that you need to fix. And so I think this idea that, you know, we need to be happy all the time would just be psychologically and, and evolutionarily would be terrible for us, right? Like we'd be missing out on these signals that tell us what we need. And so I think what we, what we need to do, and what I preach a lot in the class isn't, happiness isn't about being happy all the time. It's kind of having the normative emotions that come up based on situations.

[00:09:48] Chris Duffy: This is one of the things that I admire most about your work, and I think it's so interesting is that you really are rigorously grounded in the science and in the practical pieces that make a difference. I mean, one thing that really stands out to me is that when your course was offered as a free online class, they were able to measure significant increases in well-being scores. So this isn't just like, “Hey, look at the sun and say ‘I'm happy,’” and then all of a sudden you feel happy. This is like real practice.

[00:10:15] Laurie Santos: I, I'm a scientist first and foremost, and you know, I wanna help people, but I also wanna make sure that we're not selling snake oil, and as you've said, there's a lot of snake oil out there, right? From the toxic positivity to the woo stuff, right? There's just a lot of advice out there that these isn't necessarily scientifically rigorous, although it pretends that it is, or at least it's kind of scientifically adjacent. If I say, “Hey, experience more gratitude”, or “Look at the sun”, or whatever the recommendation is, I'm saying, “And here's the paper that shows that it might work for you”, and if possible, trying to test it ourselves to make sure, you know, hey, if we suggest these strategies to students, if the students actually put these things into practice, will we move the needle? And I think that's a hard test, right? I mean, there’s… behavior change is really hard, and I think there's a lot of factors that affect our happiness. So if a simple 10-minute practice that I'm suggesting to students is moving the needle, realistically, it's probably not gonna move the needle that much.

Like if all of a sudden, my students go from zero on a happiness scale to a hundred, probably something's wrong. But the cool thing is that we actually do see small but significant increases in happiness. Small but consistent increases in people's self-reported happiness, and, and that's really cool. It suggests that some of the practices that we're suggesting really can work.

[00:11:24] Chris Duffy: So let's, let's talk about it then. What are, what are some of these practices that you would recommend?

[00:11:29] Laurie Santos: You know, if you survey people you know, or again, around the new year, like when we’re having this conversation, there’s a lot of goals out there that people think are gonna make them happy. You know, right now, or at least if you look at statistically last year, in 2022, people's top New Year's Resolutions were lose weight. Like, you know, around 4 out of 10 people basically said they wanna lose weight. Absolutely no evidence that losing weight is gonna make you happier. Changing your body in general, probably not gonna make you happier. What really does make us happier though, is changing other behaviors. For example, increasing our social connection? A huge, huge boost in people's happiness.

Pretty much every available study of happy people suggests that happy people are more social. And there's also evidence that getting more social will increase your happiness no matter your personality profile. So even if you are a self-reported introvert, getting some social connection will make you feel better.

Again, not like huge parties, huge crowds, but just like contacting that person one-on-one that you care about, but you haven't been in touch with in a while. Another big boost for our happiness is kind of getting away from this idea of self-care. These days we hear a lot about treating ourselves, and I think sometimes self-care can be like, you know, “buy this bubble bath”, but sometimes it's really about, you know, me time, and me, me, me.

But if you look at happy people, they're not as self-focused. They tend to be really other-oriented. Happy people on average, controlled for income, donate more money to charity. Happy people on average, controlled for free time, spend more of their time volunteering. They're kind of, just like, doing stuff to make other people happy rather than focused on their own happiness.

And so there's evidence that if you just kind of do more stuff for other people, get kind of out of your own headspace and try to help others, it can actually boost your happiness. So those are just some behaviors that help with happiness. There are also lots of mindsets that we can shift into that can really help with our happiness.

For example, a mindset of gratitude. This idea of just counting your blessings, like taking moments to notice the good things in life sounds super cheesy. You know, sounds like grandmotherly wisdom, but I always say: “It might be common wisdom, but it's not common practice.” Like, common practice these days is to complain about everything, right?

But again, there's evidence even if you just like write down a few things that you're grateful for every night, we can show significant increases in your happiness in as little as two weeks. A final practice I'll, I'll mention is sort of this mindset of being a little bit more present, right? You know, we talk, people have heard about mindfulness and being in the present moment, but, but the evidence really suggests that like, if you're just there with whatever's going on, noticing it, paying attention to it, and allowing it, that's better.

And that includes being present when things, like, suck. Like that includes being present when you're feeling frustrated, when you're feeling really sad, when you're feeling overwhelmed. The, the start of the new year where you're like, “Ah, there's always things I didn't finish last year. There's so much on my plate.” Like that's a moment to say, “Hey, wait, let me notice for a second. That's, that's overwhelm, right? That's, that's feeling like I haven't had a break.” And that's not a nice thing to notice and feel. It's much better, you know, to pretend that that's not happening or cover it up or check your email or whatever.

But the act of noticing that, it turns out, is important. It ultimately winds up making us feel happier, in part ‘cause it causes us, when you notice it, you gotta deal with it and allow it and change it perhaps in some cases. So, this act of being present is important, but it's not just being present when everything's like unicorns and rainbows. It's also being present when things don't feel so good.

[00:14:40] Chris Duffy: It's interesting ‘cause that, that does seem to tie back to what you were saying before about the toxic positivity pieces, right? Like if, if you insist on everything has to be happy and good all the time, you can't actually be present when you're not feeling happy and good, and that paradoxically leads you to feel less happy and good.

[00:14:57] Laurie Santos: It prevents us from really taking action on the things that matter, right? No, really noticing like, “Oh, this is loneliness”, and “Oh, hey, I can do something about loneliness. I can reach out to somebody. I can do something different.” Or “I'm feeling really overwhelmed”, like, actually that means you need some rest. You need to need to take some things off your plate.

And so, I think we can’t, like, see the solution that's gonna help us most unless we know what the problem we're dealing with is and, and knowing that problem requires understanding what emotion we're experiencing at any given time.

[00:15:23] Chris Duffy: Something that I often think of as kind of my personal goal for happiness is if I imagine myself in this metaphor as I'm a cup, to, to be overflowing with so much that I can fill other people's cups. Sometimes I associate the idea of, like, volunteering and charity with like, oh, there's, I'm overflowing so there's plenty to give, and that's when that happens. But it sounds like you're actually saying that that can also help fill my own cup, which I know I'm pushing this metaphor to its very limit here, but I wonder if that, is that true?

[00:15:53] Laurie Santos: I think that's totally right. I mean, I think another misconception that comes up when we think about happiness and motivation and things is this idea that if I do something nice for others, it kind of, like, depletes me, right?

There's this kind of fixed happiness pie out there, right? And if I kind of give some of the happiness to someone else, I'm kind of losing out myself. But that's just simply not what the data suggests. Ha, like the nice stuff in the world and happiness isn't a zero-sum game. Like, we're actually increasing the pie.

So you're kind of, to use your cup metaphor, I guess, making the cup even bigger. like you kind of add parts to the cup, you know, larger and larger cup, which again totally, I mean, it's absolutely not what our intuition is. It's not what my intuition is. I mean, I know the data. I can cite the studies on this stuff showing people, again, people who do nice things for others tend to be happier. If I force you to do nice things for other people, rather than do nice things for yourself, that will over time make you happier. Just like the simple act of forcing people to give some money to charity makes them feel better. Right?

But that's not my intuition myself, especially when I'm having a bad day. My instinct is not, “Hey, let me do something nice for my brother”, or “Let me, like, give a gift to a coworker,” or something. It's, it's me, me, me. It's like, “I want this stuff.” But in fact, I know from the data that if you really do something nice for somebody else, you'll wind up feeling better. So yeah, we're increasing the cup size as we go.

[00:17:10] Chris Duffy: Okay. Well take a second to grab your increasingly enormous cup and get yourself a refill of whatever it is that you're drinking, because we're gonna take a quick break for some ads, but we will be right back with more from Laurie in just a moment.

[00:17:33] Chris Duffy: On today's show, we're talking to Laurie Santos about science and well-being, and here is a clip from Laurie's podcast, which is called The Happiness Lab.

[00:17:40] Laurie Santos: Science shows us lots of really simple habits we can add to our lives to feel better. We can take more time to connect with the people we care about, or just chat with a stranger we meet on our commute. We can try to reduce the exhausting choices we make on a daily basis. We can count our blessings. We can become more accepting, both of the bad emotions we feel and the obstacles we face in life. We can stop focusing on the end goal and think more about the journey.

[00:18:06] Chris Duffy: How much of happiness or, more broadly, well-being is adding positives? And how much is removing negatives?

[00:18:15] Laurie Santos: Oh, I think it's, I mean, it's definitely a little bit of both, right? I think things like adding social connection, you could construe as adding some positives in, right? I'm, I'm getting the boost of the social connection, but it's also decreasing your alone time, right? It's also getting rid of loneliness to a certain extent.

I think, also, a lot of, another big factor for happiness that we haven't talked about yet is giving yourself a little bit more free time. There's lots of evidence for the power of what's called time affluence, this subjective sense that you have some free time. And for most of us, kind of feeling more time affluent means taking some stuff off our plate, right?

Like taking stuff out of the calendar rather than adding to it. And so I think we, we sometimes often forget that, like, happiness requires taking stuff away. But definitely, when it comes to boosting our time affluence, there's a lot of spots where we need to take some stuff away to get more bandwidth to even think.

[00:19:05] Chris Duffy: It’s interesting. I feel like for myself, one of the things that is often a, a trap for me to, to feel less happy is being too focused on, on money or income. Especially because I have irregular income, so it causes a lot of stress as to be like, well, “Is this actually gonna last? How long is it gonna last for?” Blah, blah, blah.

But sometimes then when I look at my actual day, and I think like, “What would I do if I won the lottery?” I don't think I would actually, like, fly to some exotic locale. I'd probably, like, see some friends and have a great conversation with someone, and I want to make a lot more money so that I can do exactly what I'm doing now, but not worry while I'm doing that right now, is a strange loop that breaks me out of that cycle a little bit sometimes.

[00:19:43] Laurie Santos: Yeah, and I think this is, you know this, this is some lovely work by the Harvard Business School professor Ashley Whillans, that shows exactly this, that often when we think about getting more time, we're often thinking about, “Well, I'd have to give up money to do that.” But what she finds is that people who focus on being wealthy in money aren't as happy as people who focus on being wealthy in time, and in fact, even spending your money to get back more time.

You know, if you have, if you are lucky enough to have some discretionary income, spending it to, you know, not have to clean your house, or even in some cases, like, buying takeout so you save time cooking and things like that. Spending your money that way and really framing it that way, which is, which is a, a spot where we mess up. A lot of us might go to a restaurant, but we don't sit in the restaurant and think, “Look at how much time I'm saving. I don't have to go to a grocery store. I don't have to clean the dishes.” We're not framing it in terms of the time saved, but the act of doing that can make you happier, much happier than, than money can make you on.

On the money and happiness points, it’s worth saying money does make you happy if you don't have much of it.

[00:20:40] Chris Duffy: Yeah.

[00:20:40] Laurie Santos: Right? Like if you can't put food on the table, if you can't put a roof over your head like it, it really will make you much happier to get some money. So it's not that money doesn't matter for happiness, it's that for probably a lot of the people listening to this podcast, if you have the basics in life, getting more money isn't really gonna help. And in the US right now, that's at around 75k, some estimates put it at. This is work by Danny Kahneman and Angus Deaton. Find around 75k. That's probably the upper limit of like, if you were to double or triple your income, would it matter very much?

So if you’re, like, lower than that, more money will make you happy. Probably not as happy as you think, but a little more might help after that point. More is just, it's just kind of gravy. It's not really gonna help as much as you assume. [00:21:21] Chris Duffy: When you, you're in a situation, obviously, where the basics are hard to come by, so much of life is, is, requires a lot of mental energy. It also requires a lot of, there's a lot of instability where you're not really sure. Things aren't predictable. Are we actually happier when we know, like, this is just reliable? Like, I know for sure my rent is covered. I know for sure I, I'm gonna be able to go to the grocery store. Like, those are kinds of predictability that I, just intuitively, they seem like they must be really important for happiness.

[00:21:48] Laurie Santos: It honestly kind of depends. I think if there's a really important thing like food on the table that you're not sure you're going to get, that feeling, that anxiety is real, like that anxiety's a true signal of like, “Man, if we don't do something different, we might get, not get food on the table.” So it's that those negative emotions are honest signals that are telling you, “Hey, a really important thing kind of matters.” You know, we sometimes forget that back in the day, this, you know, Maslow had this idea of Hierarchy of Needs, and at the bottom, it’s like food, shelter, you know, whatever.

Sometimes in our discussion of happiness, we can forget, like, no, no, no. Those basics are still basic. Like those are still really essential. If you're unsure of them, it's gonna be a bad scene. But once we get them, then there's a question of like, okay, what else, kind of, has to be stable in life? What else has to be uncertain? And I think, you know, obviously, novelty is kind of interesting, but that's in part because we get used to the things we have, right?

And so one way to, to get back the novelty is to find ways to reframe the stuff you have as kind of being interesting again. It’s sort of getting off what's often known as the hedonic treadmill, which is this idea that if you're on a treadmill for a long time, if you're running, you can sort of get used to it. You get used to the pace, you know, such that when you get off it, you're like, whoa. The, you know, like, feels like the world's not moving anymore. Right?

This is a, a treadmill that we can get on with all our, the rewards that we experience in life, all the good things in life. It's one of the reasons that gratitude can be so powerful is that gratitude can get you to notice the stuff that you already have. And so, yeah, it's true that it feels like novelty will help us feel better. You know, a new phone, you know, a new trip or a new whatever. But often it's because we, we have stopped experiencing the benefits of the things we already have. So if we can use strategies to re-experience the benefits of the stuff we have already, then we don't have to buy anything, then we don't have to make any changes. We just kind of get the same happiness benefit over time for the stuff that we, we have now.

[00:23:34] Chris Duffy: So this, this is coming out in the new year, and I wonder, what does the scientific research around wellbeing and happiness say about New Year's resolutions and about the way that we actually should approach a new year? Which, obviously, I feel like every scientist I know is, feels very strongly that, like, January 1st is just a day. It’s truly just one more day. But for a lot of people, it doesn't feel like that.

[00:23:57] Laurie Santos: There's some evidence that it's worth sort of striking when the iron is hot, when the sort of motivation iron is hot and there is evidence for, for what researchers call the fresh start effect. This is some lovely work by, uh, Katy Milkman, the University of Pennsylvania, and what, what she finds is our motivation, like, can kind of kick into high gear at certain temporal moments, right? New Year's is obviously one of them, but we have other ones. Like our birthday is often a time where we're like, this year, you know, a new switch, right? They’re these kind of moments that should be arbitrary, right?

January 1st is just another day, but for some reason, it feels like we're turning a new page where, like, new page on the calendar, blank slate. Like, anything is possible. And she finds it, like, those things matter, right? They can actually be moments where, because our motivation is in high gear, it makes sense that we're ready to make some changes.

I think the problem though, with this fresh start effect is that we apply it to the wrong changes. We're like, “This is the year that I'm gonna lose a bunch of weight. This is the year that I'm gonna make more money at work or really double down on my career.” Right? When, if you took the fresh start moment and said, you know, “This is the year that I'm really gonna invest in social connection. This is the year that I'm really gonna try to talk to myself in a different way so I'm a little bit more self-compassionate. This is the year where I'm really gonna focus on the things I'm grateful for and just try not to pay as much attention to the negativity and the hassles.” Then the fresh start effect, you'd kind of apply this moment where motivation was feeling so amped up, you'd kind of apply that motivation in positive ways that would really have a true effect on our happiness.

So, I think it's not so much that New Year's resolutions are bad. I think, yeah, any, any day you're feeling motivated to go for it, you know you should go for it and make changes. The problem is that we pick the wrong changes. And I think we also go about those changes with the wrong attitude. Um, we sometimes talk to ourselves, especially I think in the new year in this sort of drill instructor mindset, where it's like, “Well, if I just scream at myself and berate myself for how crappy things were last year, I'll make it all better this year.”

And there's so much evidence to suggest that that simply doesn't work. That we, we'd do better if we took baby steps, if we engaged with these goals with a little bit more self-compassion, like kind of thinking about, not in terms of perfection, but in terms of kind of getting better slowly over time. So we, we need to pick different resolutions and we need to go about them a little bit differently.

[00:26:06] Chris Duffy: I’ve heard you talk before about, uh, this term “mind hitches.” Can you tell us about what that is?

[00:26:10] Laurie Santos: Yeah. I mean, this is the idea that like, you know, our mind kind of sometimes messes us up, right? I think, I think the problem with happiness isn't that we're not working towards it. I think most of us are putting in a lot of effort to feel better, but the problem is that we seem to be doing it wrong. Like we, we tend to go about the wrong goals. And so I think understanding these biases, these spots where our minds go astray, can actually be really helpful. It's worth noting that they don’t fix things completely. Like I still have pretty much all the wrong intuitions when it comes to happiness about like my social connection and what I need and what circumstances will make me happy. I have the same bad intuitions as everybody else, but I think if you know that your mind is leading you astray, you can start doing better.

[00:26:49] Chris Duffy: You say you're, you're not so good at this yourself.

[00:26:51] Laurie Santos: Oh, I suck terribly, terribly.

[00:26:52] Chris Duffy : What are the things that you struggle with? Like when you personally see it, like you're like, ah, “I'm not doing my own research”?

[00:26:57] Laurie Santos: I mean, literally, I mean like having a tough afternoon, right? Today I have a bunch of podcast interviews, a bunch of meetings. I know around five o’clock, it's gonna be one of those days where I'm feeling tired, and my instinct is gonna be like, “I'm gonna plop down and watch the next new Netflix show and like, not get up, not talk to anyone.” Probably, you know, eat a bunch of junk food.

Like that's what my brain is like: “Do this, and everything will feel better.” And I know that actually if I, like, called a friend or if I did a hard Pilates workout or if I just took a walk and/or meditated, all of those things would feel way better than plopping down and watching Netflix and eating a bunch of junk food, but like it's hard to remember that in the moment. It's hard to really do it.

[00:27:37] Chris Duffy: So I believe you, and I also believe the science and the research is correct about these things, but I do feel at least inside of myself, this like instinctive desire to push back when you say like, “I've had a long day, instead of watching my favorite Netflix show, I should do a hard Pilates workout.” What are the things that people push back on the most? ‘Cause I feel like that might be one of them.

[00:27:58] Laurie Santos: Yeah. To be fair, it, it depends on what you need, right? You have to figure out what's gonna work for you in those moments and, and pay attention really to, like, kind of how it's feeling. In terms of some of the stuff where people push back a lot.

You know, especially with my, you know, Type A Yale students, I get a lot of pushback when it comes to the work on money. A lot of them have worked incredibly hard in high school to get into a place like Yale so they can leave and get, you know, a job in finance or where they're gonna make a lot of money and I'm telling them like, “Nope, that's not gonna work.”

After I present the work saying after 75k, you're not gonna feel better, they’re like, “Well, what if I invested different? Or what if I…?” Like really? They really don't like that. Um, get a lot of pushback when it comes to this idea of, of negative emotions, right? That, that like we should allow and be one with our sadness, with our anxiety.

I think that can feel really scary. How can I even overcome these emotions? So that's a spot where I get, you know, lots of pushback. And then also just this idea of is this the right enterprise? I mean, I think in the midst of where we've been with the COVID-19 crisis, with anti-black violence, with political polarization, with the climate being on fire, it can feel weird to focus on our happiness.

I think people are like, “Is that just, like, really selfish or kind of Pollyanna-ish? Right? Like, I'm just gonna pretend that I'm happy when the whole world is messed up.” And I think that's a spot where there are, are really interesting empirical data to push back. Because what the data suggests is if you really want to fight for social justice, if you wanna take action against climate change, you might actually wanna focus on your happiness, because if you look at who's doing the push for these kinds of things, it tends to be people who are happier.

You gotta put your own oxygen mask on first before helping others or helping the world. But we forget that our mental health kind of matters for our ability to do good stuff in the world and also for our performance. So that's another spot where I get pushback is like, does this stuff really matter beyond just kind of selfishly feeling good? And it's like, yeah, I actually think we'll solve a lot more of the crises in the world if a lot of us were feeling better.

[00:29:54] Chris Duffy: You don't have to wait till you're perfectly happy because giving your life meaning by working towards stuff will actually make you happier in the long run. It sometimes doesn’t. I think we sometimes forget that too.

[00:30:04] Laurie Santos: Totally. I think the key is, again, how much we're pushing and how we're doing and not noticing, and this is something that you can speak to from my own experience, you know, so I'm actually taking a year off this year to kind of address my own sense of burnout. I was in the trenches working with students in the midst of COVID-19, fighting for all this stuff, and was starting to notice all the classic signs of burnout, things like that you’re just really exhausted all the time and even getting a great night's sleep doesn't make you feel less exhausted. Things like cynicism where you know, like simple questions that my students had really, like, irk me a little bit more than they should have and a little bit more than they would have if I was feeling a little bit better.

Focusing on happiness, helping my students, it’s given me tremendous purpose and meaning in life. But that doesn't mean you can pull back and stop paying attention to when the balance is a little bit off, and if you find that it's a little off, that is definitely a negative emotional signal that you should pay attention to, ‘cause there's lots of evidence that if you don’t, then you're in for a full-blown burnout. And, and that doesn't, that doesn't go very well after that.

[00:31:03] Chris Duffy: One topic that I, I would like to get a little deeper into is how COVID-19 and the pandemic and the shifts that have happened in the world over the last couple years, how those have changed the way that you think about happiness and well-being.

[00:31:18] Laurie Santos: You know, if anything, they've made me realize how important they are and, and how fragile some of the things that we need for our happiness really are. I mean, if you designed a disease that would hit at some of the things we fundamentally need for happiness, like COVID-19 would be it, right? Like it really made it so difficult to engage in social connection, right? It was like this uncertain thing that's still kind of uncertain. Is it here? Is it not here? How long is it going? Right?

These are all things that the human mind doesn't deal with well, and we, we faced it, and out of nowhere, like in the middle of, you know, a time when we were also experiencing political polarization, which makes us feel uncertain and, and allows us to feel a lack of social connection. We experienced it at a time of climate anxiety, which is a normative anxiety to have. It should be scary that the planet is getting hotter and hotter, right? It means all the more that we need to start focusing on our mental health, in part because there's things chipping away at it, right? So we need strategies to kind of do better, but also, as I said, like these are threats that are real, that I hope someone, especially my young, smart students, will be able to solve. And unless they're protecting their mental health, they simply won't have the emotional bandwidth to fix any of this stuff either.

[00:32:26] Chris Duffy: If someone's listening to this and they immediately, like this podcast ends, they start a practice right now, like what's something that they should do in this moment as soon as the show ends to make themselves a tiny bit happier?

[00:32:38] Laurie Santos: Yeah. Well, I think the social connection piece is powerful. I think if when this podcast ends, you pick up your phone, and you try to text a friend or call a friend or set up a time to like, engage with another real human being in real life, it’s a positive thing you can do, and I promise that once you actually engage in that, at the end, if you, again, play scientist yourself and take your own data and figure out like, how am I feeling? You'll feel, “Oh, I feel much better.”

I bet you you'll feel relatively better, relative to maybe what you could have done with that half hour, which is like scrolling, scrolling through your social media feed or something like that. That would be the biggest, fastest takeaway. But I think all of these practices we've talked, it’s worth noting that, like, they're kind of fast, right? Figuring out time to text a friend, you know, I’d best that I'll take half hour. Doing something nice for someone, texting someone and checking in about how they're doing, or doing a quick $5 donation to charity. If you're having a bad day, doing something to feel a little bit more present.

You know, that could be, like, a five-minute meditation or just like, three conscious breaths of where you are right now in terms of your emotions. Scribbling in a gratitude journal. That’ll take you like five minutes, right? I mean, all the things we're talking about don't have to be these mega investments.

And I think recognizing that, realizing that these tiny baby steps can have big effects is also a way forward to realize you don't have to revamp the whole wheel, like your fresh start doesn't have to be a, like, tearing off the new page and like throwing out the rest of the book. You can really just be these small changes that you do intentionally and ideally turn into a habit over time that can have a big impact on how you're feeling.

[00:34:07] Chris Duffy: Well, Laurie Santos, thank you so much for being here. It's been a pleasure to talk to you. I'm sure that anyone who's listening to this podcast is going to immediately go and listen to The Happiness Lab, your podcast, to get even more from you. But really, it's been an absolute pleasure. Thanks for making the time.

[00:34:21] Laurie Santos: Thanks so much for having me on the show.

[00:34:25] Chris Duffy: That is it for today's episode of How to Be a Better Human. Make yourself happier by immediately texting a friend or loved one about the show, and have them listen to this episode so that you two can discuss it. A huge thank you to our guest, Laurie Santos. Her podcast is called The Happiness Lab. I'm your host, Chris Duffy, and you can find more from me, including my weekly newsletter and information about my live touring dates at chrisduffycomedy.com.

How to Be a Better Human is brought to you on the TED Side by Anna Phelan, Whitney Pennington-Rodgers, and Jimmy Gutierrez, who are psyching themselves up right now to come home from work and do an intense Pilates workout. Every episode of our show is professionally fact-checked, so you don't have to just take my word for what you're hearing. Thank goodness. This episode was fact-checked by Julia Dickerson and Erica Yuen, who much to my amazement, tell me that scientists really did teach monkeys how to use a fruit-based currency.

From PRX, our show is brought to you by Morgan Flannery, Rosalind Tordesillas, Jocelyn Gonzalez, and Patrick Grant, who are taking the next five minutes to furiously scribble in their gratitude journals.

And of course, thanks to you for listening to our show and making this all possible. We will be back next week with even more How to Be a Better Human. Until then, take care and thanks so much for listening.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Happiness Defined

What is happiness.

Coming up with a formal definition of happiness can be tricky. After all, shouldn’t we just know it when we feel it? In fact, we often use the term to describe a range of positive emotions, including amusement, joy, pride, and contentment.

But to understand the causes and effects of happiness, researchers first need to define it. For most, the term happiness is interchangeable with “subjective well-being,” which is typically measured by asking people about how satisfied they feel with their lives (evaluative), how much positive and negative emotion they tend to feel (affective), and their sense of meaning and purpose (eudaimonic). In her 2007 book The How of Happiness , positive psychology researcher Sonja Lyubomirsky elaborates, describing happiness as “the experience of joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile.”

However, it’s important to note that social and cultural factors also influence how we think about happiness. For example, studies by William Tov and others have found that people from cultures that embrace more collectivist ideals think about happiness more in terms of harmony and contentment, while more individualistic-minded people connect it to feelings of exuberance and joy. Happiness levels are also shaped by social groups, like families; happier people increase the happiness of people around them.

Though people around the world have different ways of thinking about happiness and perhaps even experience it in different ways, most involve feeling positive generally and about life overall.

What are the Limitations?

Four Ways Happiness Can Hurt You

Can feeling good ever be bad? New research says yes—and points the way to a healthier,…

Variety Is the Spice of Emotional Life

A new paper finds that cultivating a diversity of emotions—positive or negative—can…

How Much Control Do You Have Over Your Own Happiness?

Social conditions and inequality affect well-being. So, why do we keep insisting "happiness…

Featured Articles

How Everyday Rituals Can Add Meaning to Your Life

A new book illustrates how rituals can improve our lives and relationships, and how to create and recognize your own rituals.

Your Happiness Calendar for May 2024

This month, slow down and simplify.

How Pacific Islanders View Therapy—and Why That Matters

Suicide rates are disproportionately high for people of Pacific Islander heritage. Why?

World Happiness Report Isn’t So Happy for Young Americans

Young people used to be reliably happier than other age groups—but today, in certain regions of the world, they are struggling.

Will the Workweek Ever Get Shorter?

Why don't you have enough free time? A historian looks at how work and leisure time have changed over the past century.

How Well Do Happiness Practices Serve Black Communities?

We interviewed Black people about where happiness comes from and whether 15 typical happiness practices work for them.

Why Practice It?

Many studies have found that happiness actually improves other aspects of our lives. Here is an overview of some of the good stuff that research has linked to happiness.

• Happiness is good for our health : Happier people are less likely to get sick, and they live longer.
• Happiness is associated with more satisfying romantic relationships as well as stronger friendships .
• Happier people make more money and are more productive at work .
• Happier people are more generous .
• Happier people cope better with stress and trauma .
• Happier people are more creative and are better able to see the big picture .

Of course, there will be times in life when happiness feels out of reach. That’s OK. Our unpleasant emotions are appropriate responses to difficult situations; they’re there to guide our responses and help us make meaning from challenges and adversity.

Indeed, there is a great deal of research suggesting that trying to feel or falsely express happiness in bad situations is harmful to mental and physical health—and that striving to feel constantly happy can actually diminish your overall happiness in life. Multiple studies suggest that experiencing and embracing a range of emotions, not just the positive ones, is good for our mental and physical health. It’s also important to note that injury and illness can make happiness harder to achieve. For example, concussions and long COVID are both associated with depression.

In short, happiness in life is a worthy aspiration, and there are benefits to feeling happy—but it’s not realistic or healthy to expect a constant stream of positive emotions. When you do feel unhappy, it’s important to listen to that signal. Perhaps it’s time to change what you’re doing or thinking, seek support from a friend or therapist, or work to address a challenge you are facing. During especially hard times in life, suggests the research, you might look for meaning or psychological richness in your experiences, instead of trying to force yourself to be happier.

“Aim for noticing how you really feel right at that moment—and embrace all your diverse feelings,” suggests James Baraz. This will pave the way to happiness down the line.

How Do I Cultivate It?

Our happiness is shaped by genetics, life experience, social forces,  and culture, as well as individual choices. While your control over most of those domains is limited, there are steps you can take on a personal level to increase your chances of experiencing happiness in life. And all of us can act to change culture and address inequalities that affect happiness on a collective level.

Here are some of the keys to happiness identified by researchers, along with some specific, science-based activities for strengthening skills of happiness, in ourselves and in society.

Build relationships: Perhaps the dominant finding from happiness research is that social connections are fundamental. Try these practices to strengthen trust, mutual support, and affection in your relationships:

• Best Possible Self for Relationships : Imagine your relationship going as well as it possibly could.
• Mental Subtraction of Relationships : Visualize what your life would be like without the people around you.
• Gift of Time : Invest in your relationships by spending quality time with people you care about.
• Learn more ways to strengthen relationships on our website Greater Good in Action.

Practice different kinds of appreciation. Life can be hard, because negative events and emotions are inevitable. But we can bolster our resilience by shining the light of our attention on the good things.

• Savoring Walk : Take a walk and pay attention to positive feelings and experiences, to deepen and extend them.
• Gratitude : Count your blessings on a regular basis, whether by writing a letter, keeping a journal, or just saying thanks.
• Time Capsule : Create a collection of positive experiences to surprise your future self.
• Mental Subtraction of Positive Events : Visualize what your life would be like without the good things you have.

Pay attention. Studies find that people who practice mindfulness —the moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, and external circumstances—score higher on measures of happiness, and lower on measures of anxiety and distress.

• Mindful Breathing : This meditation is the most basic way to cultivate mindful attention.
• Raisin Meditation : You can put your busy life on pause by spending a few minutes feeling and tasting a raisin in your mouth.
• Self-Compassion Break : Stressed? Self-critical? Take just a moment to speak kindly to yourself.
• Get more mindfulness exercises on Greater Good in Action.

Practice kindness. Researchers believe generosity feels good because it highlights and incentivizes positive social interactions and strengthens the social bonds that support happiness. Here are some ways to be kind.

• Do nice things for other people: Neuroscience research shows that when we do nice things for others, our brains light up in areas associated with pleasure and reward.
• Compassion Meditation : This meditation fosters feelings of compassion and concern for others by training you to notice suffering and strive to alleviate it.
• Spend money on other people: Similarly, research by Elizabeth Dunn and her colleagues finds that people report greater happiness when they spend money on others than when they spend it on themselves.
• Learn more ways to practice kindness at Greater Good in Action.

Move your body—and then rest. Exercise isn’t just good for our bodies; it’s good for our happiness. So is sleep!

• Get physical: Studies show that regular physical activity increases happiness and self-esteem, reduces anxiety and stress, and can even lift symptoms of depression. “Exercise may very well be the most effective instant happiness booster of all activities,” writes Sonja Lyubomirsky in The How of Happiness .
• Spend time in nature : People who are more connected to nature tend to experience more positive emotions, vitality, and life satisfaction.
• Then get rest: Research has consistently linked lower sleep to lower happiness . What’s more, a study of more than 900 women, led by psychologist Daniel Kahneman, found that getting just one more hour of sleep each night might have a greater effect on happiness than getting a $60,000 raise.

Address inequalities. More egalitarian countries consistently rank among the happiest in the world—and there is evidence that economic, racial, and gender inequality hurts the happiness of disadvantaged groups . Fortunately, there are steps we can take to address these inequalities.

• Remove barriers to voting. Inequality depresses the vote of low-income people, which reduces their political power. You can help address that situation by supporting organizations dedicated to voter mobilization and reform.
• Work against racial prejudice and xenophobia. There are many research-tested ways to address racial inequality , on individual and collective levels.
• Work for gender and LGBTQ+ equality. There are also evidence-based ways to reduce inequality between men and women, and to expand and protect the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.
• Support efforts to address poverty. “Economic wealth matters across cultures,” says researcher William Tov. “In every culture, wealthier people generally are happier than less wealthy people.” Fortunately, volunteering and political activism—or more specifically, the sense of meaning and purpose those involve— seem to be good for both mental and physical health . If we can help our society address poverty, says the evidence, then everyone benefits .

Of course, happiness-boosting activities don’t work equally well for everyone . Understanding yourself better can help you choose practices and exercises that align with your personality, your situation, and your goals.

The Science of Happiness

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Although happiness can feel like an amorphous concept, science has explored key pieces of the experience, such as which choices, activities, and mindsets lead to fulfillment, common misunderstandings of happiness, and theories that may explain the origin and attainment of well-being.

On This Page

• What Makes People Happy?
• Myths About Happiness
• Theories of Happiness

Finding satisfaction and contentment is a continual process. Psychologists have now identified many of the tenets that help individuals along that journey.

Happiness incorporates curiosity, and the ability to tolerate risk and anxiety to discover new passions and facets of identity. It involves a balance between momentary pleasure and longer-term striving toward goals. It is abetted by friends and family who can both celebrate accomplishments and provide support after failures. Happiness includes the ability to acknowledge and embrace every emotion, even the unpleasant ones. It involves seeing the big picture, rather than getting stuck in the details. Overall, being happy is to live with mindfulness, meaning, and purpose.

The key to lifelong happiness is taking time to cultivate small tweaks on a regular basis. Incorporating habits into your daily life such as keeping a gratitude journal, practicing kindness, nurturing optimism, learning to forgive, investing in relationships, finding flow activities, avoiding overthinking, savoring life’s joys, and committing to goals can make happiness a permanent fixture.

Some people are naturally more optimistic, positive, and content. Although genetics is, in fact, a key determinant of happiness, people who gravitate toward pessimism are able to change their outlook (to an extent) by reframing negative thoughts and preventing self-criticism .

Our genes may be what influences happiness the most. Behavioral geneticists and psychologists attribute about 50 percent of happiness to genetics, 10 percent to life circumstances, and 40 percent to personal choices. Even if people aren’t born with a bright outlook, committing to improving their happiness on a regular basis can make a difference.

Children and teens today have higher expectations for their life, yet income inequality and other factors make achieving success more difficult. Additionally more people value wealth over relationships than did previously, which can lead to diminished happiness in adulthood. These reasons and others may be why adults are less happy than they used to be .

People often want to avoid difficult emotions, so they reach for quick fixes like tasty treats or luxurious purchases. Those indulgences provide happiness, but only momentarily. Yet pinning all hopes of happiness on milestones like getting married, gaining fame, or becoming wealthy is also misleading. Lasting happiness occurs when we invest in meaningful goals, relationships, and values and develop skills to overcome distress.

People often believe that accomplishments like marriage and wealth will bring lasting happiness, and adverse experiences such as divorce or disease will bring unremitting sadness. But research reveals that bursts of happiness or sadness tied to specific life events are fairly short. Thoughts like “I’ll be happy when I get married” or “I’ll never recover from this diagnosis” turn out to be misperceptions .

People are surprisingly bad at anticipating their future happiness . They tend to overestimate how joyous or upsetting events will be: A promotion will not provide unending fulfillment and a breakup will not be hopelessly tragic. People also recall experiences by the beginning, end, and intense or “peak” moments, rather than by the experience as a whole.

Not at all. A meaningful life encompasses disappointments and loss. Difficult experiences can reveal our core values, motivate us to make change, and render happy moments even more joyous and special.

It seems logical to believe that more choices would lead to better outcomes. But too many choices can lead people to stress about the decision and wonder about the lost alternatives. This is referred to as the paradox of choice, a term coined by psychologist Barry Schwartz.

Many lottery winners wind up no happier than their peers down the road—and some face a distinct downturn, squandering their wealth, dealing with litigation, or navigating life with people who demand a share of the winnings. Yet research suggests that when lottery winners spend their money on basic necessities or moderate consumption, they feel more secure, fortunate, and happy .

Positive psychology is a school of thought devoted to understanding what leads people and communities to flourish. Five agreed-upon factors boost well-being: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. Beyond those overarching principles, specific models and concepts have emerged as well.

Every individual is born with a particular “happiness set point” or a baseline level of happiness, research suggests. After experiencing triumphs or tragedies, people adapt to their new circumstances and their emotions generally return to this genetically-determined level of well-being.

Commitment to compassion and altruism may help reset your happiness set point, as the trait most connected to long-term increases in life satisfaction. Helping others leads a person to be happier—perhaps due to higher self-esteem, a sense of self-worth, or a deeper sense of purpose, feeling that lives are important.

When people reach a milestone such as buying a new car or securing a raise, they have a jolt of happiness, but eventually return to baseline. This fuels the so-called hedonic treadmill, in which people continually believe “the next change” will bring happiness. But variety and appreciation can help keep happiness from fading.

The happiness pie is a model for the factors in life that determine happiness. The happiness pie proposes that 50 percent of happiness is due to genes, 10 percent is due to life circumstances, and 40 percent is due to the personal choices we make and activities we engage in to cultivate happiness.

Learn why it is so hard to say goodbye to the inner critic that is killing your self-confidence—and how to let it go for good.

A Personal Perspective: How can one sustain meaning in the sunset of life?

Mentally traveling forward or backward in time can increase control, self-esteem, and coherence, according to a recent study. Here's how it works.

Personal Perspective: Disability can teach everyone about purpose, persistence, and community.

How often do you celebrate accomplishments? It’s time we savor reaching our goals. Savoring your experiences will enrich your life.

New research identifies six types of single people who vary in interpersonal strengths and personal qualities.

There is no doubt that people have needs. Needs matter. An unmet need will demand your attention. Needs definitely need to be met, but no one can do that meeting for you.

The recent World Happiness Report revealed a shocking decline in happiness among today's youth. Teens are at midlife-crisis levels of discontent. Adults need to create change.

How this essential brain chemical works and why it’s important for your health.

In life, there's always going to be someone with more. Jealousy and envy only make you feel worse. Fortunately, sympathetic joy offers a better path forward for you and others.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

There are roughly two philosophical literatures on “happiness,” each corresponding to a different sense of the term. One uses ‘happiness’ as a value term, roughly synonymous with well-being or flourishing. The other body of work uses the word as a purely descriptive psychological term, akin to ‘depression’ or ‘tranquility’. An important project in the philosophy of happiness is simply getting clear on what various writers are talking about: what are the important meanings of the term and how do they connect? While the “well-being” sense of happiness receives significant attention in the contemporary literature on well-being, the psychological notion is undergoing a revival as a major focus of philosophical inquiry, following on recent developments in the science of happiness. This entry focuses on the psychological sense of happiness (for the well-being notion, see the entry on well-being ). The main accounts of happiness in this sense are hedonism, the life satisfaction theory, and the emotional state theory. Leaving verbal questions behind, we find that happiness in the psychological sense has always been an important concern of philosophers. Yet the significance of happiness for a good life has been hotly disputed in recent decades. Further questions of contemporary interest concern the relation between the philosophy and science of happiness, as well as the role of happiness in social and political decision-making.

1.1 Two senses of ‘happiness’

1.2 clarifying our inquiry, 2.1 the chief candidates, 2.2 methodology: settling on a theory, 2.3 life satisfaction versus affect-based accounts, 2.4 hedonism versus emotional state, 2.5 hybrid accounts, 3.1 can happiness be measured, 3.2 empirical findings: overview, 3.3 the sources of happiness, 4.1 doubts about the value of happiness, 4.2 restoring happiness to the theory of well-being, 4.3 is happiness overrated, 5.1 normative issues, 5.2 mistakes in the pursuit of happiness, 5.3 the politics of happiness, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the meanings of ‘happiness’.

What is happiness? This question has no straightforward answer, because the meaning of the question itself is unclear. What exactly is being asked? Perhaps you want to know what the word ‘happiness’ means. In that case your inquiry is linguistic. Chances are you had something more interesting in mind: perhaps you want to know about the thing , happiness, itself. Is it pleasure, a life of prosperity, something else? Yet we can’t answer that question until we have some notion of what we mean by the word.

Philosophers who write about “happiness” typically take their subject matter to be either of two things, each corresponding to a different sense of the term:

• A state of mind
• A life that goes well for the person leading it

In the first case our concern is simply a psychological matter. Just as inquiry about pleasure or depression fundamentally concerns questions of psychology, inquiry about happiness in this sense—call it the (long-term) “psychological sense”—is fundamentally the study of certain mental states. What is this state of mind we call happiness? Typical answers to this question include life satisfaction, pleasure, or a positive emotional condition.

Having answered that question, a further question arises: how valuable is this mental state? Since ‘happiness’ in this sense is just a psychological term, you could intelligibly say that happiness isn’t valuable at all. Perhaps you are a high-achieving intellectual who thinks that only ignoramuses can be happy. On this sort of view, happy people are to be pitied, not envied. The present article will center on happiness in the psychological sense.

In the second case, our subject matter is a kind of value , namely what philosophers nowadays tend to call prudential value —or, more commonly, well-being , welfare , utility or flourishing . (For further discussion, see the entry on well-being . Whether these terms are really equivalent remains a matter of dispute, but this article will usually treat them as interchangeable.) “Happiness” in this sense concerns what benefits a person, is good for her, makes her better off, serves her interests, or is desirable for her for her sake. To be high in well-being is to be faring well, doing well, fortunate, or in an enviable condition. Ill-being, or doing badly, may call for sympathy or pity, whereas we envy or rejoice in the good fortune of others, and feel gratitude for our own. Being good for someone differs from simply being good, period: perhaps it is always good, period, for you to be honest; yet it may not always be good for you , as when it entails self-sacrifice. Not coincidentally, the word ‘happiness’ derives from the term for good fortune, or “good hap,” and indeed the terms used to translate it in other languages often have similar roots. In this sense of the term—call it the “well-being sense”—happiness refers to a life of well-being or flourishing: a life that goes well for you.

Importantly, to ascribe happiness in the well-being sense is to make a value judgment : namely, that the person has whatever it is that benefits a person. [ 1 ] If you and I and have different values, then we may well differ about which lives we consider happy. I might think Genghis Khan had a happy life, because I think what matters for well-being is getting what you want; while you deny this because you think a life of evildoing, however “successful,” is sad and impoverished.

Theories of well-being—and hence of “happiness” in the well-being sense—come in three basic flavors, according to the best-known taxonomy (Parfit 1984): hedonism, desire theories, and objective list theories. Whereas hedonists identify well-being roughly with experiences of pleasure, desire theorists equate it with the satisfaction of one’s desires— actually getting what you want, versus merely having certain experiences. Both hedonism and desire theories are in some sense subjectivist, since they ground well-being in the individual’s subjective states. Objective list theorists, by contrast, think some things benefit us independently of our attitudes or feelings: there are objective prudential goods. Aristotelians are the best-known example: they take well-being ( eudaimonia ) to consist in a life of virtuous activity—or more broadly, the fulfillment of our human capacities. A passive but contented couch potato may be getting what he wants, and he may enjoy it. But he would not, on Aristotelian and other objective list theories, count as doing well, or leading a happy life.

Now we can sharpen the initial question somewhat: when you ask what happiness is, are you asking what sort of life benefits a person? If so, then your question concerns matters of value, namely what is good for people—the sort of thing that ethical theorists are trained to address. Alternatively, perhaps you simply want to know about the nature of a certain state of mind—happiness in the psychological sense. In this case, some sort of psychological inquiry will be needed, either philosophical or scientific. (Laypersons often have neither sort of question in mind, but are really asking about the sources of happiness. Thus it might be claimed, say, that “happiness is being with good friends.” This is not a view about the nature or definition of happiness, but rather a theory about the sorts of things that tend to make us happy. It leaves unanswered, or takes for granted, the question of just what happiness is , such that friends are a good source of it.)

In short, philosophical “theories of happiness” can be about either of at least two different things: well-being, or a state of mind. [ 2 ] Accordingly, there are essentially two bodies of philosophical literature about “happiness” and two sets of debates about its nature, though writers often fail to distinguish them. Such failures have generated much confusion, sometimes yielding bogus disagreements that prove to be merely verbal. [ 3 ] For instance, some psychologists identify “happiness” with attitudes of life satisfaction while remaining neutral on questions of value, or whether Bentham, Mill, Aristotle, or any other thinker about the good life was correct. Such researchers employ the term in the psychological sense. Yet it is sometimes objected against such claims that life satisfaction cannot suffice for “happiness” because other things, like achievement or knowledge, matter for human well-being. The objectors are confused: their opponents have made no claims about well-being at all, and the two “sides,” as it were, are simply using ‘happiness’ to talk about different things. One might just as sensibly object to an economist’s tract on “banks” that it has nothing to say about rivers and streams.

Which use of ‘happiness’ corresponds to the true meaning of the term in contemporary English? Arguably, both. The well-being usage clearly dominates in the historical literature through at least the early modern era, for instance in translations of the ancient Greeks’ ‘ eudaimonia ’ or the Latin ‘ beatitudo ’, though this translation has long been a source of controversy. Jefferson’s famous reference to “the pursuit of happiness” probably employed the well-being sense. Even later writers such as Mill may have used the term in its well-being sense, though it is often difficult to tell since well-being itself is often taken to consist in mental states like pleasure. In ordinary usage, the abstract noun ‘happiness’ often invites a well-being reading. And the locution ‘happy life ’ may not naturally take a psychological interpretation, for the simple reason that lives aren’t normally regarded as psychological entities.

Contrast this with the very different meaning that seems to attach to talk of “ being happy.” Here it is much less clear that we are talking about a property of a person’s life; it seems rather to be a property of the person herself. To be happy, it seems, is just to be in a certain sort of psychological state or condition. Similarly when we say that so-and-so “is happy” (as opposed to saying that he is leading a happy life). This psychological usage, arguably, predominates in the current vernacular. Researchers engaged in the self-described “science of happiness” usually do not take themselves to be making value judgments when they proclaim individuals in their studies to be happy. Nor, when asserting that a life satisfaction study shows Utahans to be happier than New Yorkers, are they committing themselves to the tendentious claim that Utahans are better off . (If they are, then the psychology journals that are publishing this research may need to revise their peer-review protocols to include ethicists among their referees.) And the many recent popular books on happiness, as well as innumerable media accounts of research on happiness, nearly all appear to take it for granted that they are talking about nothing more than a psychological condition.

Henceforth ‘happiness’ will be used in the long-term psychological sense, unless otherwise specified. Note, however, that a number of important books and other works on “happiness” in recent decades have employed the well-being sense of the term. Books of this sort appear to include Almeder 2000, Annas 1993, 2011, Bloomfield 2014, Cahn and Vitrano 2015, Kenny and Kenny 2006, McMahon 2005, McPherson 2020, Noddings 2003, Russell 2013, White 2006, and Vitrano 2014, though again it is not always clear how a given author uses the term. For discussion of the well-being notion, see the entry on well-being . [ 4 ]

2. Theories of happiness

Philosophers have most commonly distinguished two accounts of happiness: hedonism , and the life satisfaction theory. Hedonists identify happiness with the individual’s balance of pleasant over unpleasant experience, in the same way that welfare hedonists do. [ 5 ] The difference is that the hedonist about happiness need not accept the stronger doctrine of welfare hedonism; this emerges clearly in arguments against the classical Utilitarian focus on happiness as the aim of social choice. Such arguments tend to grant the identification of happiness with pleasure, but challenge the idea that this should be our primary or sole concern, and often as well the idea that happiness is all that matters for well-being.

Life satisfaction theories identify happiness with having a favorable attitude toward one’s life as a whole. This basic schema can be filled out in a variety of ways, but typically involves some sort of global judgment: an endorsement or affirmation of one’s life as a whole. This judgment may be more or less explicit, and may involve or accompany some form of affect. It may also involve or accompany some aggregate of judgments about particular items or domains within one’s life. [ 6 ]

A third theory, the emotional state view, departs from hedonism in a different way: instead of identifying happiness with pleasant experience, it identifies happiness with an agent’s emotional condition as a whole, of what is often called “emotional well-being.” [ 7 ] This includes nonexperiential aspects of emotions and moods (or perhaps just moods), and excludes pleasures that don’t directly involve the individual’s emotional state. It might also include a person’s propensity for experiencing various moods, which can vary over time, though several authors have argued against this suggestion (e.g., Hill 2007, Klausen 2015, Rossi 2018). Happiness on such a view is more nearly the opposite of depression or anxiety—a broad psychological condition—whereas hedonistic happiness is simply opposed to unpleasantness. For example, a deeply distressed individual might distract herself enough with constant activity to maintain a mostly pleasant existence—broken only by tearful breakdowns during the odd quiet moment—thus perhaps counting as happy on a hedonistic but not emotional state view. The states involved in happiness, on an emotional state view, can range widely, far more so that the ordinary notion of mood or emotion. On one proposal, happiness involves three broad categories of affective state, including “endorsement” states like joy versus sadness, “engagement” states like flow or a sense of vitality, and “attunement” states like tranquility, emotional expansiveness versus compression, and confidence. Given the departures from commonsensical notions of being in a “good mood,” happiness is characterized in this proposal as “psychic affirmation,” or “psychic flourishing” in pronounced forms.

A fourth family of views, hybrid theories , attempts an irenic solution to our diverse intuitions about happiness: identify happiness with both life satisfaction and pleasure or emotional state, perhaps along with other states such as domain satisfactions. The most obvious candidate here is subjective well-being , which is typically defined as a compound of life satisfaction, domain satisfactions, and positive and negative affect. (Researchers often seem to identify happiness with subjective well-being, sometimes with life satisfaction, and perhaps most commonly with emotional or hedonic state.) The chief appeal of hybrid theories is their inclusiveness: all the components of subjective well-being seem important, and there is probably no component of subjective well-being that does not at times get included in “happiness” in ordinary usage.

How do we determine which theory is correct? Traditional philosophical methods of conceptual or linguistic analysis can give us some guidance, indicating that some accounts offer a better fit with the ordinary concept of happiness. Thus it has been argued that hedonism is false to the concept of happiness as we know it; the intuitions taken to support hedonism point instead to an emotional state view (Haybron 2001). And some have argued that life satisfaction is compatible with profoundly negative emotional states like depression—a suffering artist might not value emotional matters much, and wholeheartedly affirm her life (Carson 1981, Davis 1981b, Haybron 2005, Feldman 2010). Yet it might seem counterintuitive to deem such a person happy. At the same time, people do sometimes use ‘happiness’ to denote states of life satisfaction: life satisfaction theories do seem faithful to some ordinary uses of ‘happiness’. The trouble is that HAPPINESS appears to be a “mongrel concept,” as Ned Block (1995) called the concept of consciousness: the ordinary notion is something of a mess. We use the term to denote different things in different contexts, and often have no clear notion of what we are referring to. This suggests that accounts of happiness must be somewhat revisionary, and that we must assess theories on grounds other than simple fidelity to the lay concept of happiness—“descriptive adequacy,” in Sumner’s (1996) terms. One candidate is practical utility: which conception of happiness best answers to our interests in the notion? We talk about happiness because we care about it. The question is why we care about it, and which psychological states within the extension of the ordinary term make the most sense of this concern. Even if there is no simple answer to the question what happiness is, it may well turn out that our interests in happiness cluster so strongly around a particular psychological kind that happiness can best, or most profitably, be understood in terms of that type of state (Haybron 2003). Alternatively, we may choose to distinguish different varieties of happiness. It will be less important how we use the word, however, than that we be clear about the nature and significance of the phenomena that interest us.

The debate over theories of happiness falls along a couple of lines. The most interesting questions concern the choice between life satisfaction and affect-based views like hedonism and the emotional state theory. [ 8 ] Proponents of life satisfaction see two major advantages to their account. First, life satisfaction is holistic , ranging over the whole of one’s life, or the totality of one’s life over a certain period of time. It reflects not just the aggregate of moments in one’s life, but also the global quality of one’s life taken as a whole (but see Raibley 2010). And we seem to care not just about the total quantity of good in our lives, but about its distribution—a happy ending, say, counts for more than a happy middle (Slote 1982, Velleman 1991). Second, life satisfaction seems more closely linked to our priorities than affect is, as the suffering artist case illustrates. While a focus on affect makes sense insofar as we care about such matters, most people care about other things as well, and how their lives are going relative to their priorities may not be fully mirrored in their affective states. Life satisfaction theories thus seem to fit more closely with liberal ideals of individual sovereignty, on which how well my life is going for me is for me to decide. My satisfaction with my life seems to embody that judgment. Of course a theory of happiness need not capture everything that matters for well-being; the point is that a life satisfaction view might explain why we should care so much about happiness, and so enjoy substantive as well as intuitive support. [ 9 ]

But several objections have been raised against life satisfaction views. The most common complaint has already been noted, namely that a person could apparently be satisfied with her life even while leading a highly unpleasant or emotionally distressed existence, and it can seem counterintuitive to regard such a person as happy (see section 2.2). Some life satisfaction theorists deny that such cases are possible (Benditt 1978), but it could also be argued that such possibilities are part and parcel of life satisfaction’s appeal: some people may not get much pleasure out of life because they don’t care particularly about affective matters, and a life satisfaction theory allows that they can, in their own fashion, be happy.

Two other objections are more substantive, raising questions about whether life satisfaction has the right sort of importance. One concern is whether people often enough have well-grounded attitudes of life satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Evaluating one’s life as a whole can be a complicated business, and there is some question whether people typically have well-defined attitudes toward their lives that accurately reflect how well their lives measure up relative to their priorities. Some research, for instance, suggests that life satisfaction reports tend to reflect judgments made on the spot, drawing on whatever information comes readily to mind, with substantial influences by transient contextual factors like the weather, finding a dime, etc. (Schwarz and Strack 1999). Debate persists over whether this work undermines the significance of life satisfaction judgments, but it does raise a question whether life satisfaction attitudes tend to be well-enough grounded to have the kind of importance that people normally ascribe to happiness.

The third objection is somewhat intricate, so it will require some explaining. The claim is that a wide range of life satisfaction attitudes might be consistent with individuals’ perceptions of how well their lives are going relative to what they care about, raising doubts about the importance of life satisfaction (Haybron 2016). You might reasonably be satisfied when getting very little of what you want, or dissatisfied when getting most of what you want. One reason for this is that people tend to have many incommensurable values, leaving it open how to add them up. Looking at the various ups and downs of your life, it may be arbitrary whether to rate your life a four out of ten, or a seven. A second reason is that life satisfaction attitudes are not merely assessments of subjective success or personal welfare: they involve assessments of whether one’s life is good enough —satisfactory. Yet people’s values may radically underdetermine where they should set the bar for a “good enough” life, again rendering the judgment somewhat arbitrary. Given your values, you might reasonably be satisfied with a two, or require a nine to be satisfied. While it may seem important how well people see their lives going relative to what they care about, it is not obviously so important whether people see their lives going well enough that they are willing to judge them satisfactory.

If life satisfaction attitudes are substantially arbitrary relative to subjective success, then people might reasonably base those attitudes on other factors, such as ethical ideals (e.g., valuing gratitude or noncomplacency) or pragmatic concerns (e.g., comforting oneself). Shifts in perspective might also reasonably alter life satisfaction attitudes. After the funeral, you might be highly satisfied with your life, whereas the high school reunion leaves you dissatisfied; yet neither judgment need be mistaken, or less authoritative.

As a result, life satisfaction attitudes may be poor indicators of well-being, even from the individual’s own point of view. That people in a given country register high levels of life satisfaction may reflect nothing more than that they set the bar extremely low; they might be satisfied with anything short of pure agony. Another country’s citizens might be dissatisfied with their lives, but only because they set the bar much higher. Relative to what they care about, people in the dissatisfied nation could be better off than those in the satisfied nation. To take another example, a cancer patient might be more satisfied with his life than he was before the diagnosis, for he now looks at his life from a different perspective and emphasizes different virtues like fortitude and gratitude as opposed to (say) humility and non-complacency. Yet he need not think himself better off at all: he might believe himself worse off than he was when he was less satisfied. Neither judgment need seem to him or us to be mistaken: it’s just that he now looks at his life differently. Indeed, he might think he’s doing badly, even as he is satisfied with his life: he endorses it, warts and all, and is grateful just have his not-so-good life rather than some of the much worse alternatives.

For present purposes, the worry is that life satisfaction may not have the kind of significance happiness is normally thought to have. This may pose a difficulty for the identification of life satisfaction with happiness: for people frequently seem to use happiness as a proxy for well-being, a reasonably concrete and value-free stand-in that facilitates quick-and-dirty assessments of welfare. Given the discovery that someone is happy, we might infer that he is doing well; if we learn that someone is unhappy, we may conclude that she is doing poorly. Such inferences are defeasible: if we later find that the happy Ned’s wife and friends secretly hate him, we need not decide that he isn’t happy after all; we simply withdraw the conclusion that he is doing well. So long as happiness tracks well-being well enough in most cases, this sort of practice is perfectly respectable. But if we identify happiness with life satisfaction, then we may have a problem: maybe Sally is satisfied only because she values being grateful for the good things in life. This sort of case may not be merely a theoretical possibility: perhaps the very high rates of self-reported life satisfaction in the United States and many other places substantially reflects a broad acceptance of norms of gratitude and a general tendency to emphasize the positives, or perhaps a sense that not to endorse your life amounts to a lack of self-regard. It is not implausible that most people, even those enduring great hardship, can readily find grounds for satisfaction with their lives. Life may have to be pretty hard for a person to be incapable of affirming it.

Despite these concerns there is significant intuitive appeal in the idea that to be happy is to be satisfied with one’s life. Perhaps a different way of conceiving life satisfaction, for instance dispensing with the global judgment and aggregating particular satisfactions and dissatisfactions, would lessen the force of these objections. Alternatively, it is possible that idealized or qualified forms of life satisfaction would mitigate these concerns for some purposes, such as a theory of well-being. [ 10 ]

A second set of issues concerns the differences between the two affect-based views, hedonism and emotional state. The appeal of hedonism is fairly obvious: the pleasantness of our experience is plainly a matter of great significance; many have claimed it to be the only thing that matters. What, by contrast, motivates the emotional state account, which bears obvious similarities to hedonism yet excludes many pleasures from happiness? The question of motivation appears to be the chief worry facing the emotional state theory: what’s to be gained by focusing on emotional state rather than pleasure?

One argument for taking such a view is intuitive: some find it implausible to think that psychologically superficial pleasures invariably make a difference in how happy one is—the typical pleasure of eating a cracker, say, or even the intense pleasure of an orgasm that nonetheless fails to move one, as can happen with meaningless sexual activity. The intuitive distinction seems akin to distinctions made by some ancient philosophers; consider, for instance, the following passage from Epictetus’s Discourses :

‘I have a headache.’ Well, do not say ‘Alas!’ ‘I have an earache.’ Do not say ‘Alas!’ And I am not saying that it is not permissible to groan, only do not groan in the centre of your being . ( Discourses , 1.18.19, emphasis added).

The Stoics did not expect us never to feel unpleasant sensations, which would plainly be impossible; rather, the idea was not to let such things get to us , to impact our emotional conditions.

Why should anyone care to press such a distinction in characterizing happiness? For most people, the hedonic difference between happiness on an emotional state versus a hedonistic view is probably minimal. But while little will be lost, what will be gained? One possibility is that the more “central” affects involving our emotional conditions may bear a special relation to the person or the self , whereas more “peripheral” affects, like the pleasantness of eating a cracker, might pertain to the subpersonal aspects of our psychologies. Since well-being is commonly linked to ideas of self-fulfillment, this sort of distinction might signal a difference in the importance of these states. Another reason to focus on emotional condition rather than experience alone may be the greater psychological depth of the former: its impact on our mental lives, physiology, and behavior is arguably deeper and more pervasive. This enhances the explanatory and predictive significance of happiness, and more importantly its desirability: happiness on this view is not merely pleasant, but a major source of pleasure and other good outcomes (Fredrickson 2004, Lyubomirsky, King et al . 2005). Compare health on this score: while many think it matters chiefly or entirely because of its connection with pleasure, there are few skeptics about the importance of health. As well, emotional state views may capture the idea that happiness concerns the individual’s psychological orientation or disposition : to be happy, on an emotional state theory, is not just to be subjected to a certain sequence of experiences, but for one’s very being to manifest a favorable orientation toward the conditions of one’s life—a kind of psychic affirmation of one’s life. This reflects a point of similarity with life satisfaction views of happiness: contra hedonism, both views take happiness to be substantially dispositional, involving some sort of favorable orientation toward one’s life. But life satisfaction views tend to emphasize reflective or rational endorsement, whereas emotional state views emphasize the verdicts of our emotional natures.

While hedonism and emotional state theories are major contenders in the contemporary literature, all affect-based theories confront the worries, noted earlier, that motivate life satisfaction views—notably, their looser connection with people’s priorities, as well as their limited ability to reflect the quality of people’s lives taken as a whole.

Given the limitations of narrower theories of happiness, a hybrid account such as a subjective well-being theory may seem an attractive solution. This strategy has not been fully explored in the philosophical literature, though Sumner’s “life satisfaction” theory may best be classified as a hybrid (1996; see also Martin 2012). In any event, a hybrid approach draws objections of its own. If we arrive at a hybrid theory by this route, it could seem like either the marriage of two unpromising accounts, or of a promising account with an unpromising one. Such a union may not yield wholesome results. Second, people have different intuitions about what counts as happiness, so that no theory can accommodate all of them. Any theory that tries to thus risks pleasing no one. A third concern is that the various components of any hybrid are liable to matter for quite different reasons, so that happiness, thus understood, might fail to answer to any coherent set of concerns. Ascriptions of happiness could be relatively uninformative if they cast their net too widely.

3. The science of happiness

With the explosive rise of empirical research on happiness, a central question is how far, and how, happiness might be measured. [ 11 ] There seems to be no in-principle barrier to the idea of measuring, at least roughly, how happy people are. Investigators may never enjoy the precision of the “hedonimeter” once envisaged by Edgeworth to show just how happy a person is (Edgeworth 1881). Indeed, such a device might be impossible even in principle, since happiness might involve multiple dimensions that either cannot be precisely quantified or summed together. If so, it could still be feasible to develop approximate measures of happiness, or at least its various dimensions. Similarly, depression may not admit of precise quantification in a single number, yet many useful if imprecise measures of depression exist. In the case of happiness, it is plausible that even current measures provide information about how anxious, cheerful, satisfied, etc. people are, and thus tell us something about their happiness. Even the simplest self-report measures used in the literature have been found to correlate well with many intuitively relevant variables, such as friends’ reports, smiling, physiological measures, health, longevity, and so forth (Pavot 2008).

Importantly, most scientific research needs only to discern patterns across large numbers of individuals—to take an easy case, determining whether widows tend to be less happy than newlyweds—and this is compatible with substantial unreliability in assessing individual happiness. Similarly, an inaccurate thermometer might be a poor guide to the temperature, but readings from many such thermometers could correlate fairly well with actual temperatures—telling us, for instance, that Minnesota is colder than Florida.

This point reveals an important caveat: measures of happiness could correlate well with how happy people are, thus telling us which groups of people tend to be happier, while being completely wrong about absolute levels of happiness. Self-reports of happiness, for instance, might correctly indicate that unemployed people are considerably less happy than those with jobs. But every one of those reports could be wrong, say if everyone is unhappy yet claims to be happy, or vice-versa, so long as the unemployed report lower happiness than the employed. Similarly, bad thermometers may show that Minnesota is colder than Florida without giving the correct temperature.

Two morals emerge from these reflections. First, self-report measures of happiness could be reliable guides to relative happiness, though telling us little about how happy, in absolute terms, people are. We may know who is happier, that is, but not whether people are in fact happy. Second, even comparisons of relative happiness will be inaccurate if the groups being compared systematically bias their reports in different ways. This worry is particularly acute for cross-cultural comparisons of happiness, where differing norms about happiness may undermine the comparability of self-reports. The French might report lower happiness than Americans, for instance, not because their lives are less satisfying or pleasant, but because they tend to put a less positive spin on things. For this reason it may be useful to employ instruments, including narrower questions or physiological measures, that are less prone to cultural biasing. [ 12 ]

The discussion thus far has assumed that people can be wrong about how happy they are. Is this plausible? Some have argued that (sincerely) self-reported happiness cannot, even in principle, be mistaken. If you think you’re happy, goes a common sentiment, then you are happy. This claim is not plausible on a hedonistic or emotional state view of happiness, since those theories take judgments of happiness to encompass not just how one is feeling at the moment but also past states, and memories of those can obviously be spurious. Further, it has been argued that even judgments of how one feels at the present moment may often be mistaken, particularly regarding moods like anxiety. [ 13 ]

The idea that sincere self-reports of happiness are incorrigible can only be correct, it seems, given a quite specific conception of happiness—a kind of life satisfaction theory of happiness on which people count as satisfied with their lives so long as they are disposed to judge explicitly that they are satisfied with their lives on the whole. Also assumed here is that self-reports of happiness are in fact wholly grounded in life satisfaction judgments like these—that is, that people take questions about “happiness” to be questions about life satisfaction. Given these assumptions, we can plausibly conclude that self-reports of happiness are incorrigible. One question is whether happiness, thus conceived, is very important. As well, it is unlikely that respondents invariably interpret happiness questions as being about life satisfaction. At any rate, even life satisfaction theorists might balk at this variant of the account, since life satisfaction is sometimes taken to involve, not just explicit global judgments of life satisfaction, but also our responses to the particular things or domains we care about. Some will hesitate to deem satisfied people who hate many of the important things in their lives, however satisfied they claim to be with their lives as a whole.

In a similar vein, the common practice of measuring happiness simply by asking people to report explicitly on how “happy” they are is sometimes defended on the grounds that it lets people decide for themselves what happiness is. The reasoning again seems to presuppose, controversially, that self-reports of happiness employ a life satisfaction view of happiness, the idea being that whether you are satisfied (“happy”) will depend on what you care about. Alternatively, the point might be literally to leave it up to the respondent to decide whether ‘happy’ means hedonic state, emotional state, life satisfaction, or something else. Thus one respondent’s “I’m happy” might mean “my experience is generally pleasant,” while another’s might mean “I am satisfied with my life as a whole.” It is not clear, however, that asking ambiguous questions of this sort is a useful enterprise, since different respondents will in effect be answering different questions.

To measure happiness through self-reports, then, it may be wiser to employ terms other than ‘happiness’ and its cognates—terms whose meaning is relatively well-known and fixed. In other words, researchers should decide in advance what they want to measure—be it life satisfaction, hedonic state, emotional state, or something else—and then ask questions that refer unambiguously to those states. [ 14 ] This stratagem may be all the more necessary in cross-cultural work, where finding suitable translations of ‘happy’ can be daunting—particularly when the English meaning of the term remains a matter of contention (Wierzbicka 2004).

This entry focuses on subjective well-being studies, since that work is standardly deemed “happiness” research. But psychological research on well-being can take other forms, notably in the “eudaimonic”—commonly opposed to “hedonic”—literature, which assesses a broader range of indicators taken to represent objective human needs, such as meaning, personal growth, relatedness, autonomy, competence, etc. [ 15 ] (The assimilation of subjective well-being to the “hedonic” realm may be misleading, since life satisfaction seems primarily to be a non -hedonic value, as noted earlier.) Other well-being instruments may not clearly fall under either the “happiness” or eudaimonic rubrics, for instance extending subjective well-being measures by adding questions about the extent to which activities are seen as meaningful or worthwhile (White and Dolan 2009). An important question going forward is how far well-being research needs to incorporate indicators beyond subjective well-being.

The scientific literature on happiness has grown to proportions far too large for this article to do more than briefly touch on a few highlights. [ 16 ] Here is a sampling of oft-cited claims:

• Most people are happy
• People adapt to most changes, tending to return over time to their happiness “set point”
• People are prone to make serious mistakes in assessing and pursuing happiness
• Material prosperity has a surprisingly modest impact on happiness

The first claim, that most people are happy, appears to be a consensus position among subjective well-being researchers (for a seminal argument, see Diener and Diener 1996). The contention reflects three lines of evidence: most people, in most places, report being happy; most people report being satisfied with their lives; and most people experience more positive affect than negative. On any of the major theories of happiness, then, the evidence seems to show that most people are, indeed, happy. Yet this conclusion might be resisted, on a couple of grounds. First, life satisfaction theorists might question whether self-reports of life satisfaction suffice to establish that people are in fact satisfied with their lives. Perhaps self-reports can be mistaken, say if the individual believes herself satisfied yet shows many signs of dissatisfaction in her behavior, for instance complaining about or striving to change important things in her life. Second, defenders of affect-based theories—hedonistic and emotional state views—might reject the notion that a bare majority of positive affect suffices for happiness. While the traditional view among hedonists has indeed been that happiness requires no more than a >1:1 ratio of positive to negative affect, this contention has received little defense and has been disputed in the recent literature. Some investigators have claimed that “flourishing” requires greater than a 3:1 ratio of positive to negative affect, as this ratio might represent a threshold for broadly favorable psychological functioning (e.g., Larsen and Prizmic 2008). While the evidence for any specific ratio is highly controversial, if anything like this proportion were adopted as the threshold for happiness, on a hedonistic or emotional state theory, then some of the evidence taken to show that people are happy could in fact show the opposite. In any event, the empirical claim relies heavily on nontrivial philosophical views about the nature of happiness, illustrating one way in which philosophical work on happiness can inform scientific research.

The second claim, regarding adaptation and set points, reflects well-known findings that many major life events, like being disabled in an accident or winning the lottery, appear strongly to impact happiness only for a relatively brief period, after which individuals may return to a level of happiness not very different from before. [ 17 ] As well, twin studies have found that subjective well-being is substantially heritable, with .50 being a commonly accepted figure. Consequently many researchers have posited that each individual has a characteristic “set point” level of happiness, toward which he tends to gravitate over time. Such claims have caused some consternation over whether the pursuit and promotion of happiness are largely futile enterprises (Lykken and Tellegen 1996; Millgram 2000). However, the dominant view now seems to be that the early claims about extreme adaptation and set points were exaggerated: while adaptation is a very real phenomenon, many factors—including disability—can have substantial, and lasting, effects on how happy people are. [ 18 ] This point was already apparent from the literature on correlates and causes of happiness, discussed below: if things like relationships and engaging work are important for happiness, then happiness is probably not simply a matter of personality or temperament. As well, the large cross-national differences in measured happiness are unlikely to be entirely an artifact of personality variables. Note that even highly heritable traits can be strongly susceptible to improvement. Better living conditions have raised the stature of men in the Netherlands by eight inches—going from short (five foot four) to tall (over six feet)—in the last 150 years (Fogel 2005). Yet height is considered much more heritable than happiness, with typical heritability estimates ranging from .60 to over .90 (e.g., Silventoinen, Sammalisto et al . 2003). [ 19 ]

The question of mistakes will be taken up in section 5.2. But the last claim—that material prosperity has relatively modest impacts on happiness—has lately become the subject of heated debate. For some time the standard view among subjective well-being researchers was that, beyond a low threshold where basic needs are met, economic gains have only a small impact on happiness levels. According to the well-known “Easterlin Paradox,” for instance, wealthier people do tend to be happier within nations, but richer nations are little happier than less prosperous counterparts, and—most strikingly—economic growth has virtually no impact (Easterlin 1974). In the U.S., for example, measured happiness has not increased significantly since at least 1947, despite massive increases in wealth and income. In short, once you’re out of poverty, absolute levels of wealth and income make little difference in how happy people are.

Against these claims, some authors have argued that absolute income has a large impact on happiness across the income spectrum (e.g., Stevenson and Wolfers 2008). The question continues to be much debated, but in 2010 a pair of large-scale studies using Gallup data sets, including improved measures of life satisfaction and affect, suggested that both sides may be partly right (Kahneman and Deaton 2010; Diener, Ng et al . 2010). Surveying large numbers of Americans in one case, and what is claimed to be the first globally representative sample of humanity in the other, these studies found that income does indeed correlate substantially (.44 in the global sample), at all levels, with life satisfaction—strictly speaking, a “life evaluation” measure that asks respondents to rate their lives without saying whether they are satisfied. Yet the correlation of household income with the affect measures is far weaker: globally, .17 for positive affect, –.09 for negative affect; and in the United States, essentially zero above $75,000 (though quite strong at low income levels). For more recent discussions of empirical work, see Jebb et al. 2018 along with relevant chapters in Diener et al. 2018 and the annual World Happiness Reports from 2012 onward (Helliwell et al. 2012). Research on the complex money-happiness relationship resists simple characterization, but a crude summary is that the connection tends to be positive and substantial, strong at lower income levels while modest to weak or even negative at higher incomes, and stronger and less prone to satiation for life evaluation than emotional well-being metrics. But again, these are very rough generalizations that gloss over a variety of important factors and admit of many exceptions across both individuals and societies.

In short, the relationship between money and happiness may depend on which theory of happiness we accept: on a life satisfaction view, the relationship may be strong; whereas affect-based views may yield a much weaker connection, again above some modest threshold. Here, again, philosophical views about the nature and significance of happiness may play an important role in understanding empirical results and their practical upshot. Economic growth, for instance, has long been a top priority for governments, and findings about its impact on human well-being may have substantial implications for policy.

It is important to note that studies of this nature focus on generic trends, not specific cases, and there is no dispute that significant exceptions exist—notably, populations that enjoy high levels of happiness amid low levels of material prosperity. Among others, a number of Latin American countries, Maasai herders, Inughuit hunter-gatherers, and Amish communities have registered highly positive results in subjective well-being studies, sometimes higher than those in many affluent nations, and numerous informal accounts accord with the data. [ 20 ] Such “positive outliers” suggest that some societies can support high levels of happiness with extremely modest material holdings. The importance of money for happiness may depend strongly on what kind of society one inhabits. An interesting question, particularly in light of common environmental concerns, is how far the lessons of such societies can, or should, be transferred to other social forms, where material attainment and happiness are presently more tightly coupled. Perhaps some degree of decoupling of happiness and money would be desirable.

So the role of money in happiness appears, at this juncture, to be a mixed bag, depending heavily on how we conceive of happiness and what range of societies we are considering. What (else), then, does matter most for happiness? There is no definitive list of the main sources of happiness in the literature, partly because it is not clear how to divide them up. But the following items seem generally to be accepted as among the chief correlates of happiness: supportive relationships, engagement in interesting and challenging activities, material and physical security, a sense of meaning or purpose, a positive outlook, and autonomy or control. [ 21 ] Significant correlates may also include—among many others—religion, good governance, trust, helping others, values (e.g., having non-materialistic values), achieving goals, not being unemployed, and connection with the natural environment. [ 22 ]

An illustrative study of the correlates of happiness from a global perspective is the Gallup World Poll study noted earlier (Diener, Ng et al . 2010; see also Jebb et al. 2020). In that study, the life satisfaction measure was more strongly related to material prosperity, as noted above: household income, along with possession of luxury conveniences and satisfaction with standard of living. The affect measures, by contrast, correlated most strongly with what the authors call “psychosocial prosperity”: whether people reported being treated with respect in the last day, having family and friends to count on, learning something new, doing what they do best, and choosing how their time was spent.

What these results show depends partly on the reliability of the measures. One possible source of error is that this study might exaggerate the relationship between life satisfaction and material attainments through the use of a “ladder” scale for life evaluation, ladders being associated with material aspirations. Errors might also arise through salience biases whereby material concerns might be more easily recalled than other important values, such as whether one has succeeded in having children; or through differences in positivity biases across income levels (perhaps wealthier people tend to be more “positive-responding” than poorer individuals). Another question is whether the affect measures adequately track the various dimensions of people’s emotional lives. However, the results are roughly consonant with other research, so they are unlikely to be entirely an artifact of the instruments used in this study. [ 23 ] A further point of uncertainty is the causal story behind the correlations—whether the correlates, like psychosocial prosperity, cause happiness; whether happiness causes them; whether other factors cause both; or, as is likely, some combination of the three.

Such concerns duly noted, the research plausibly suggests that, on average, material progress has some tendency to help people to better get what they want in life, as found in the life satisfaction measures, while relationships and engaging activities are more important for people’s emotional lives. What this means for happiness depends on which view of happiness is correct.

4. The importance of happiness

Were you to survey public attitudes about the value of happiness, at least in liberal Western democracies, you would likely find considerable support for the proposition that happiness is all that really matters for human well-being. Many philosophers over the ages have likewise endorsed such a view, typically assuming a hedonistic account of happiness. (A few, like Almeder 2000, have identified well-being with happiness understood as life satisfaction.)

Most philosophers, however, have rejected hedonistic and other mental state accounts of well-being, and with them the idea that happiness could suffice for well-being. [ 24 ] (See the entry on well-being .) Objections to mental state theories of well-being tend to cluster around two sets of concerns. First, it is widely believed that the non-mental conditions of our lives matter for well-being: whether our families really love us, whether our putative achievements are genuine, whether the things we care about actually obtain. The most influential objection of this sort is Robert Nozick’s experience machine case, wherein we are asked to imagine a virtual reality device that can perfectly simulate any reality for its user, who will think the experience is genuine (Nozick 1974). Would you plug in to such a machine for life? Most people would not, and the case is widely taken to vitiate mental state theories of well-being. Beyond having positive mental states, it seems to matter both that our lives go well and that our state of mind is appropriately related to how things are. [ 25 ]

A second set of objections concerns various ways in which a happy person might nonetheless seem intuitively to be leading an impoverished or stunted life. The most influential of these worries involves adaptation , where individuals facing oppressive circumstances scale back their expectations and find contentment in “small mercies,” as Sen put it. [ 26 ] Even a slave might come to internalize the values of his oppressors and be happy, and this strikes most as an unenviable life indeed. Related worries involve people with diminished capacities (blindness, Down Syndrome), or choosing to lead narrow and cramped or simpleminded lives (e.g., counting blades of grass). Worries about impoverished lives are a prime motivator of Aristotelian theories of well-being, which emphasize the full and proper exercise of our human capacities.

In the face of these and other objections most commentators have concluded that neither happiness nor any other mental state can suffice for well-being. Philosophical interest in happiness has consequently flagged, since its theoretical importance becomes unclear if it does not play a starring role in our account of the good.

Even as happiness might fail to suffice for well-being, well-being itself may be only one component of a good life , and not the most important one at that. Here ‘good life’ means a life that is good all things considered, taking account of all the values that matter in life, whether they benefit the individual or not. Kant, for example, considered both morality and well-being to be important but distinct elements of a good life. Yet morality should be our first priority, never to be sacrificed for personal happiness.

In fact there is a broad consensus, or near-consensus, among ethical theorists on a doctrine we might call the priority of virtue : broadly and crudely speaking, the demands of virtue or morality trump other values in life. [ 27 ] We ought above all to act and live well, or at least not badly or wrongly. This view need not take the strong form of insisting that we must always act as virtuously as possible, or that moral reasons always take precedence. But it does mean, at least, that when being happy requires acting badly, one’s happiness must be sacrificed. If it would be wrong to leave your family, in which you are unhappy, then you must remain unhappy, or find more acceptable ways to seek happiness.

The mainstream views in all three of the major approaches to ethical theory—consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics—agree on some form of the priority of virtue. Where these views chiefly differ is not on the importance of being good, but on whether being good necessarily benefits us. Virtue ethicists tend to answer in the affirmative, the other two schools in the negative. Building virtue into well-being, as Aristotelians do, may seem to yield a more demanding ethics, and in some ways it does. Yet many deontologists and consequentialists—notably Kant—advocate sterner, more starkly moralistic visions of the good life than Aristotle would ever have dreamt of (e.g., Singer 1972).

Happiness, in short, is believed by most philosophers to be insufficient for well-being, and still less important for the good life. These points may seem to vitiate any substantial role for happiness in ethical thought. However, well-being itself is still regarded as a central concept in ethical thought, denoting one of the chief elements of a good life even if not the sole element. And there are reasons for thinking happiness important, both practically and theoretically, despite the worries noted above.

Even if happiness does not suffice for well-being—a point that not all philosophers would accept—it might still rate a privileged spot in theories of well-being. This could happen in either of two ways.

First, happiness could be a major component of a theory of well-being. Objective list theories of well-being sometimes include happiness or related mental states such as enjoyment among the fundamental constituents of well-being. A more ambitious proposal, originated by L.W. Sumner, identifies well-being with authentic happiness —happiness that is authentic in the sense of being both informed and autonomous (Sumner 1996). The root idea is that well-being involves being happy, where one’s happiness is a response of one’s own (autonomous), to a life that genuinely is one’s own (informed). The authenticity constraint is meant to address both experience machine-type worries and “happy slave” objections relating to adaptation, where happiness may be non-autonomous, depending on manipulation or the uncritical acceptance of oppressive values. Since these have been the most influential objections to mental state accounts of well-being, Sumner’s approach promises to considerably strengthen the position of happiness-centered approaches to well-being, and several philosophers have developed variants or close relations of the authentic happiness theory (Brülde 2007, Haybron 2008a, Tiberius and Plakias 2010, Višak 2015). The approach remains fairly new, however, so its long-term prospects remain unclear. [ 28 ]

A second strategy forsakes the project of giving a unitary theory of well-being, recognizing instead a family of two or more kinds of prudential value. Happiness could be central to, or even exhaustive of, one of those values. Shelly Kagan, for instance, has suggested that welfare hedonism could be correct as a theory of how well a person is doing, but not of how well a person’s life is going, which should perhaps be regarded as a distinct value (Kagan 1992, 1994). In short, we might distinguish narrow and wide well-being concepts. An experience machine user might be doing well in the narrow sense, but not the wide—she is doing well, though her life is quite sad. Happiness might, then, suffice for well-being, but only in the narrow sense. Others have made similar points, but uptake has been limited, perhaps because distinguishing multiple concepts of prudential value makes the already difficult job of giving a theory of well-being much harder, as Kagan pointedly observes. [ 29 ] An interesting possibility is that the locution ‘happy life’, and the corresponding well-being sense of happiness, actually refers to a specific variety of well-being—perhaps well-being in the wide sense just suggested, or well-being taken as an ideal state, an ultimate goal of deliberation. This might explain the continued use of ‘happiness’ for the well-being notion in the philosophical literature, rather than the more standard ‘wellbeing.’

The preceding section discussed ways that happiness might figure prominently even in non-mental state theories of well-being. The question there concerned the role of happiness in theories of well-being. This is a different question from how important happiness is for well-being itself. Even a theory of well-being that includes no mention at all of happiness can allow that happiness is nonetheless a major component or contributor to well-being, because of its relation to the things that ultimately constitute well-being. If you hold a desire theory of well-being, for instance, you will very likely allow that, for most people, happiness is a central aspect of well-being, since most people very much desire to be happy. Indeed, some desire theorists have argued that the account actually yields a form of hedonism, on the grounds that people ultimately desire nothing else but happiness or pleasure (Sidgwick 1907 [1966], Brandt 1979, 1989).

Happiness may be thought important even on theories normally believed to take a dismissive view of it. Aristotelians identify well-being with virtuous activity, yet Aristotle plainly takes this to be a highly pleasant condition, indeed the most pleasant kind of life there is (see, e.g., NE , Bk. I 8; Bk. VII 13). You cannot flourish, on Aristotelian terms, without being happy, and unhappiness is clearly incompatible with well-being. Even the Stoics, who notoriously regard all but a virtuous inner state as at best indifferent, would still assign happiness a kind of importance: at the very least, to be unhappy would be unvirtuous; and virtue itself arguably entails a kind of happiness, namely a pleasant state of tranquility. As well, happiness would likely be a preferred indifferent in most cases, to be chosen over unhappiness. To be sure, both Aristotelian and Stoic accounts are clear that happiness alone does not suffice for well-being, that its significance is not what common opinion takes it to be, and that some kinds of happiness can be worthless or even bad. But neither denies that happiness is somehow quite important for human well-being.

In fact it is questionable whether any major school of philosophical thought denies outright the importance of happiness, at least on one of the plausible accounts of the matter. Doubts about its significance probably owe to several factors. Some skeptics, for example, focus on relatively weak conceptions of happiness, such as the idea that it is little more than the simple emotion of feeling happy—an idea that few hedonists or emotional state theorists would accept. Or, alternatively, assuming that a concern for happiness has only to do with positive states. Yet ‘happiness’ also serves as a blanket term for a domain of concern that involves both positive and negative states, namely the kinds of mental states involved in being happy or unhappy. Just as “health” care tends to focus mainly on ill health, so might happiness researchers choose to focus much of their effort on the study and alleviation of unhappiness—depression, suffering, anxiety, and other conditions whose importance is uncontroversial. The study of happiness need be no more concerned with smiles than with frowns.

5. The pursuit and promotion of happiness

The last set of questions we will examine centers on the pursuit of happiness, both individual and collective. Most of the popular literature on happiness discusses how to make oneself happier, with little attention given to whether this is an appropriate goal, or how various means of pursuing happiness measure up from an ethical standpoint. More broadly, how if at all should one pursue happiness as part of a good life?

We saw earlier that most philosophers regard happiness as secondary to morality in a good life. The individual pursuit of happiness may be subject to nonmoral norms as well, prudence being the most obvious among them. Prudential norms need not be as plain as “don’t shoot yourself in the foot.” On Sumner’s authentic happiness view of well-being, for instance, we stand to gain little by pursuing happiness in inauthentic ways, for instance through self-deception or powerful drugs like Huxley’s soma , which guarantees happiness come what may (Huxley 1932 [2005]). The view raises interesting questions about the benefits of less extreme pharmaceuticals, such as the therapeutic use of antidepressants; such medications can make life more pleasant, but many people worry whether they pose a threat to authenticity, perhaps undercutting their benefits. It is possible that such drugs involve prudential tradeoffs, promoting well-being in some ways while undermining it in others; whether the tradeoffs are worth it will depend on how, in a given case, the balance is struck. Another possibility is that such drugs sometimes promote authenticity, if for instance a depressive disorder prevents a person from being “himself.”

Looking to more broadly ethical, but not yet moral, norms, it may be possible to act badly without acting either immorally or imprudently. While Aristotle himself regarded acting badly as inherently imprudent, his catalogue of virtues is instructive, as many of them (wit, friendliness, etc.) are not what we normally regard as moral virtues. Some morally permissible methods of pursuing happiness may nonetheless be inappropriate because they conflict with such “ethical” virtues. They might, for instance, be undignified or imbecilic.

Outwardly virtuous conduct undertaken in the name of personal happiness might, if wrongly motivated, be incompatible with genuine virtue. One might, for instance, engage in philanthropy solely to make oneself happier, and indeed work hard at fine-tuning one’s assistance to maximize the hedonic payoff. This sort of conduct would not obviously instantiate the virtue of compassion or kindness, and indeed might be reasonably deemed contemptible. Similarly, it might be admirable, morally or otherwise, to be grateful for the good things in one’s life. Yet the virtue of gratitude might be undermined by certain kinds of gratitude intervention, whereby one tries to become happier by focusing on the things one is grateful for. If expressions of gratitude become phony or purely instrumental, the sole reason for giving thanks being to become happy—and not that one actually has something to be thankful for—then the “gratitude” might cease to be admirable, and may indeed be unvirtuous. [ 30 ]

A different question is what means of pursuing happiness are most effective . This is fundamentally an empirical question, but there are some in-principle issues that philosophical reflection might inform. One oft-heard claim, commonly called the “paradox of hedonism,” is that the pursuit of happiness is self-defeating; to be happy, don’t pursue happiness. It is not clear how to interpret this dictum, however, so that it is both interesting and true. It is plainly imprudent to make happiness one’s focus at every moment, but doubtful that this has often been denied. Yet never considering happiness also seems an improbable strategy for becoming happier. If you are choosing among several equally worthwhile occupations, and have good evidence that some of them will make you miserable, while one of them is likely to be highly fulfilling, it would not seem imprudent to take that information into account. Yet to do so just is to pursue happiness. The so-called paradox of hedonism is perhaps best seen as a vague caution against focusing too much on making oneself happy, not a blanket dismissal of the prospects for expressly seeking happiness—and for this modest point there is good empirical evidence (Schooler, Ariely et al . 2003, Lyubomirsky 2007).

That happiness is sometimes worth seeking does not mean we will always do a good job of it (Haybron 2008b). In recent decades a massive body of empirical evidence has gathered on various ways in which people seem systematically prone to make mistakes in the pursuit of their interests, including happiness. Such tendencies have been suggested in several domains relating to the pursuit of happiness, including (with recent surveys cited):

• Assessing how happy we are, or were in the past (Haybron 2007)
• Predicting (“forecasting”) what will make us happy (Gilbert 2006)
• Choosing rationally (Kahneman and Tversky 2000, Gilovitch, Griffin et al . 2002, Hsee and Hastie 2006)

A related body of literature explores the costs and benefits of (ostensibly) making it easier to pursue happiness by increasing people’s options; it turns out that having more choices might often make people less happy, for instance by increasing the burdens of deliberation or the likelihood of regret (Schwartz 2004). Less discussed in this context, but highly relevant, is the large body of research indicating that human psychology and behavior are remarkably prone to unconscious social and other situational influences, most infamously reported in the Milgram obedience experiments (Doris 2002, 2015, Haybron 2014). Human functioning, and the pursuit of happiness, may be more profoundly social than many commentators have assumed. [ 31 ]

Taken together, this research bears heavily on two central questions in the philosophical literature: first, the broad character of human nature (e.g., in what sense are we rational animals? How should we conceive of human autonomy?); second, the philosophical ideals of the good society and good government.

Just a decade ago the idea of happiness policy was something of a novelty. While it remains on the fringes in some locales, notably the United States, in much of the world there has been a surge of interest in making happiness an explicit target of policy consideration. Attention has largely shifted, however, to a broader focus on well-being to reflect not just happiness but also other welfare concerns of citizens, and dozens of governments now incorporate well-being metrics in their national statistics. [ 32 ]

Let’s consider the rationale for policies aimed at promoting well-being. In political thought, the modern liberal tradition has tended to assume an optimistic view of human nature and the individual’s capacities for prudent choice. Partly for this reason, the preservation and expansion of individual freedoms, including people’s options, is widely taken to be a central goal, if not the goal, of legitimate governments. People should be freed to seek the good life as they see it, and beyond that the state should, by and large, stay out of the well-being-promotion business.

This vision of the good society rests on empirical assumptions that have been the subject of considerable debate. If it turns out that people systematically and predictably err in the pursuit of their interests, then it may be possible for governments to devise policies that correct for such mistakes. [ 33 ] Of course, government intervention can introduce other sorts of mistakes, and there is some debate about whether such measures are likely to do more harm than good (e.g., Glaeser 2006).

But even if governments cannot effectively counteract human imprudence, it may still be that people fare better in social forms that influence or even constrain choices in ways that make serious mistakes less likely. (Food culture and its impact on health may be an instructive example here.) The idea that people tend to fare best when their lives are substantially constrained or guided by their social and physical context has recently been dubbed contextualism ; the contrary view, that people do best when their lives are, as much as possible, determined by the individuals themselves, is individualism (Haybron 2008b). Recent contextualists include communitarians and many perfectionists, though contextualism is not a political doctrine and is compatible with liberalism and even libertarian political morality. Contextualism about the promotion of well-being is related to recent work in moral psychology that emphasizes the social character of human agency, such as situationism and social intuitionism. [ 34 ]

Quite apart from matters of efficacy, there are moral questions about the state promotion of happiness, which has been a major subject of debate, both because of the literature on mistakes and research suggesting that the traditional focus of state efforts to promote well-being, economic growth, has a surprisingly modest impact on happiness. One concern is paternalism : does happiness-based policy infringe too much on personal liberty? Some fear a politics that may too closely approximate Huxley’s Brave New World, where the state ensures a drug-induced happiness for all (Huxley 1932 [2005]). Extant policy suggestions, however, have been more modest. Efforts to steer choice, for instance in favor of retirement savings, may be paternalistic, but advocates argue that such policies can be sufficiently light-handed that no one should object to them, in some cases even going so far as to deem it “libertarian paternalism” (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). [ 35 ] The idea is that gentle “nudges,” like setting default options on hiring forms to setting aside money for retirement, interfere only trivially with choice, imposing little or no cost for those who wish to choose differently, and would very likely be welcomed by most of those targeted.

Also relatively light-handed, and perhaps not paternalistic at all, are state efforts to promote happiness directly through social policy, for instance by prioritizing unemployment over economic growth on the grounds that the former has a larger impact on happiness. Other policies might include trying to reduce commute times, or making walkable neighborhoods and green space a priority in urban planning, again on happiness grounds. Some may deem such measures paternalistic insofar as they trade freedom (in the form of economic prosperity) for a substantive good, happiness, that people value unevenly, though it has also been argued that refusing to take citizens’ values like happiness into consideration in policy deliberation on their behalf can amount to paternalism (Haybron and Alexandrova 2013).

A related sort of objection to happiness-based policy argues that happiness, or even well-being, is simply the wrong object of policy, which ought instead to focus on the promotion of resources or capabilities (Rawls 1971, Nussbaum 2000, Quong 2011, Sen 2009). Several reasons have been cited for this sort of view, one being that policies aimed at promoting happiness or well-being violate commonly accepted requirements of “liberal neutrality,” according to which policy must be neutral among conceptions of the good. According to this constraint, governments must not promote any view of the good life, and happiness-based policy might be argued to flout it. Worries about paternalism also surface here, the idea being that states should only focus on affording people the option to be happy or whatever, leaving the actual achievement of well-being up to the autonomous individual. As we just saw, however, it is not clear how far happiness policy initiatives actually infringe on personal liberty or autonomy. A further worry is that, happiness isn’t really, or primarily, what matters for human well-being (Nussbaum 2008).

But a major motivation for thinking happiness the wrong object of policy is that neither happiness nor well-being are the appropriate focus of a theory of justice . What justice requires of society, on this view, is not that it make us happy; we do not have a right to be happy. Rather, justice demands only that each has sufficient opportunity (in the form of resources or capabilities, say) to achieve a good life, or that each gets a fair share of the benefits of social cooperation. However plausible such points may be, it is not clear how far they apply to many proposals for happiness-based policy, save the strongest claims that happiness should be the sole aim of policy: many policy decisions are not primarily concerned with questions of social justice, nor with constitutional fundamentals, the focus of some theories of justice. Happiness could be a poor candidate for the “currency” of justice, yet still remain a major policy concern. Indeed, the chief target of happiness policy advocates has been, not theories of justice, but governments’ overwhelming emphasis on promoting GDP and other indices of economic growth. This is not, in the main, a debate about justice, and as of yet the philosophical literature has not extensively engaged with it.

However, the push for happiness-based policy is a recent development. In coming years, such questions will likely receive considerably more attention in the philosophical literature.

• Adler, Matthew D., 2019, Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Adler, M. D., and M. Fleurbaey (eds.), 2015, The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ahuvia, A., et al., 2015, “Happiness: An Interactionist Perspective,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 5(1): 1–18.
• Alexandrova, A., 2005, “Subjective Well-Being and Kahneman’s ‘Objective Happiness’,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 6: 301–324.
• –––, 2008, “First-Person Reports and the Measurement of Happiness,” Philosophical Psychology , 21(5): 571–583.
• –––, 2017, A Philosophy for the Science of Well-Being , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Alexandrova, A. and D. M. Haybron, 2012, “High Fidelity Economics,” in The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology , W. Hands and J. Davis (eds.). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
• –––, 2016, “Is Construct Validation Valid?,” Philosophy of Science , 83(5): 1098–1109.
• Almeder, R., 2000, Human Happiness and Morality , Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press.
• Andreou, C., 2010, “A Shallow Route to Environmentally Friendly Happiness: Why Evidence That We Are Shallow Materialists Need Not Be Bad News for the Environment(Alist),” Ethics, Place & Environment , 13(1): 1–10.
• Ang, J. M. S., 2019, “Can Existentialists Be Happy? Authentic Life, Authentic Happiness,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 122–129.
• Angier, T., 2015, “Happiness: Overcoming the Skill Model,” International Philosophical Quarterly , 55(1): 5–23.
• Angner, E., 2009, “The Politics of Happiness,” Philosophy and Happiness , L. Bortolotti (ed.), New York: Palgrave, 1–26.
• –––, 2010, “Are subjective measures of well-being ‘direct’?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 89(1): 115–130.
• –––, 2011, “The Evolution of Eupathics: The Historical Roots of Subjective Measures of Well-Being,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1): 4–41.
• –––, 2013a, “Is it possible to measure happiness?,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 3(2): 221–240.
• –––, 2013b, “Is Empirical Research Relevant to Philosophical Conclusions?,” Res Philosophica , 90(3): 365–85.
• –––, 2016, A Course in Behavioral Economics , second edition, London: Palgrave.
• Annas, J., 1993, The Morality of Happiness , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2011, Intelligent Virtue , New York: Oxford.
• Argyle, M., 1999, “Causes and Correlates of Happiness,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 3–25.
• –––, 2002, The Psychology of Happiness , New York: Routledge.
• Austin, A., 2015, “On Well-Being and Public Policy: Are We Capable of Questioning the Hegemony of Happiness?,” Social Indicators Research , 127(1): 1–16.
• Badhwar, N., 2008, “Is Realism Really Bad for You? A Realistic Response,” The Journal of Philosophy , 105(2): 85–107.
• –––, 2014, Well-Being: Happiness in a Worthwhile Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Happiness,” in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being , ed. G. Fletcher, New York: Routledge, 323–35.
• Bagaric, M., and J. McConvill, 2005, “Goodbye Justice, Hello Happiness: Welcoming Positive Psychology to the Law,” Deakin Law Review , 10(1): 1–26.
• Barrow, R., 1980, Happiness and Schooling , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• –––, 1991, Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement , Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
• Beck, B., and B. Stroop, 2015, “A Biomedical Shortcut to (Fraudulent) Happiness? An Analysis of the Notions of Well-Being and Authenticity Underlying Objections to Mood Enhancement,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Berlin: Springer, 115–34.
• Becker, L. C., 2012, Habilitation, Health, and Agency , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Belliotti, R. A., 2004, Happiness Is Overrated , New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2013, “The Seductions of Happiness,” The Oxford Handbook of Happiness , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Benditt, T. M., 1974, “Happiness,” Philosophical Studies , 25: 1–20.
• –––, 1978, “Happiness and Satisfaction – A Rejoinder to Carson,” The Personalist , 59: 108–9.
• Besser, L. L., 2014, Eudaimonic Ethics , New York: Routledge.
• Besser-Jones, L., 2013, “The Pursuit and Nature of Happiness,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 103–21.
• Billon, A., 2016, “Irrationality and Happiness: A (Neo-) Shopenhauerian Argument for Rational Pessimism,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy , 11(1): 1–27.
• Bishop, M., 2012, “The Network Theory of Well-Being: An Introduction,” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication , 7: 1–29.
• –––, 2015, The Good Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Biswas-Diener, R., 2018, “The Subjective Well-Being of Small Societies,” Handbook of Well-Being , E. Diener, S. Oishi, and L. Tay (eds.), Salt Lake City: DEF Publishers.
• Biswas-Diener, R., J. Vittersø and E. Diener, 2005, “Most People are Pretty Happy, but There is Cultural Variation: The Inughuit, The Amish, and The Maasai,” The Journal of Happiness Studies , 6(3): 205–226.
• Blackson, T., 2009, “On Feldman’s Theory of Happiness,” Utilitas , 21(3): 393–400.
• Block, N., 1995, “On a Confusion About A Function of Consciousness,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 18: 227–247.
• Bloomfield, P., 2014, The Virtues of Happiness , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bognar, G., 2010, “Authentic Happiness,” Utilitas , 22(3): 272–284.
• Bok, D., 2010a, The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Bok, S., 2010b, Exploring Happiness: From Aristotle to Brain Science , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Bortolotti, L. (ed.), 2009, Philosophy and Happiness , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bosch, M. van den, and W. Bird, 2018, Oxford Textbook of Nature and Public Health: The Role of Nature in Improving the Health of a Population , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bramble, B., 2016, “The Experience Machine,” Philosophy Compass , 11(3): 136–45.
• Brandt, R. B., 1959, Ethical Theory , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• –––, 1979, A Theory of the Good and the Right , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 1989, “Fairness to Happiness,” Social Theory & Practice , 15: 33–58.
• –––, 1992, Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Brülde, B., 2007, “Happiness theories of the good life,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8(1): 15–49.
• –––, 2015, “Well-Being, Happiness and Sustainability,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , Happiness Studies Book Series, J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Berlin: Springer, 157–76.
• Brannmark, J., 2003, “Leading lives: On happiness and narrative meaning,” Philosophical Papers , 32(3): 321–343.
• Bruni, L., F. Comim, and M. Pugno (eds.), 2008, Capabilities and Happiness , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Buss, S., 2004, “The Irrationality of Unhappiness and the Paradox of Despair,” Journal of Philosophy , CI(4): 171–200.
• Cahn, S. M. and C. Vitrano (eds.), 2008, Happiness: Classical and Contemporary Readings in Philosophy , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2015, Happiness and Goodness: Philosophical Reflections on Living Well , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Campbell, R., 1973, “The Pursuit Of Happiness,” Personalist , 54: 325–337.
• Capaldi, C. A. et al., 2015, “Flourishing in Nature: A Review of the Benefits of Connecting with Nature and Its Application as a Wellbeing Intervention,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 5(4): 1–16.
• Capuccino, C., 2013, “Happiness and Aristotle’s Definition of Eudaimonia,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 1–26.
• Carson, T. L., 1978a, “Happiness and Contentment: A Reply to Benditt,” The Personalist , 59: 101–7.
• –––, 1978b, “Happiness and the Good Life,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy , 9: 73–88.
• –––, 1979, “Happiness and the Good Life: a Rejoinder to Mele,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy , 10: 189–192.
• –––, 1981, “Happiness, Contentment, and the Good Life,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 62: 378–92.
• Cashen, M, 2012, “Happiness, Eudaimonia, and The Principle of Descriptive Adequacy,” Metaphilosophy , 43(5): 619–35.
• Cavallaro, M., and G. Heffernan, 2019, “From Happiness to Blessedness: Husserl on Eudaimonia, Virtue, and the Best Life,” HORIZON. Studies in Phenomenology , 8(2): 353–388.
• Chappell, T., 2013, “Eudaimonia, Happiness, and the Redemption of Unhappiness,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 27–52.
• Charry, E. T., 2010, God and the Art of Happiness , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Chekola, M., 2007, “Happiness, Rationality, Autonomy and the Good Life,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8(1): 51–78.
• Christakis, N., J. Fowler, Simon, i. Schuster, P. D. Audio and L. Findaway World, 2009, Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives , New York: Little, Brown and Co.
• Clark, A., et al., 2018, The Origins of Happiness: The Science of Well-Being over the Life Course , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cohen Kaminitz, S., forthcoming, “Looking Good or Feeling Well? Understanding the Combinations of Well-Being Indicators Using Insights from the Philosophy of Well-Being,” Social Indicators Research , online first 12 February 2020. doi:10.1007/s11205-020-02289-9
• David, S., Boniwell, I., and A. Ayers (eds.), 2013, The Oxford Handbook of Happiness , New York: Oxford.
• Davis, W., 1981a, “Pleasure and Happiness,” Philosophical Studies , 39: 305–318.
• –––, 1981b, “A Theory of Happiness,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 18: 111–20.
• de Boer, J., 2014, “Scaling Happiness,” Philosophical Psychology , 27(5): 703–18.
• De Brigard, F., 2010, “If You like It, Does It Matter If It’s Real?,” Philosophical Psychology , 23(1): 43–57.
• de Lazari-Radek, K., and Singer, P., 2014, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Den Uyl, D. and T. R. Machan, 1983, “Recent Work on the Concept of Happiness,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 20: 115–34.
• Diener, E., 2008, “Myths in the Science of Happiness, and Directions for Future Research,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press: 493–514.
• Diener, E. and R. Biswas-Diener, 2008, Happiness: unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Diener, E. and C. Diener, 1996, “Most People Are Happy,” Psychological Science , 7(3): 181–185.
• Diener, E., R. E. Lucas, U. Schimmack and J. F. Helliwell, 2009, Well-Being for Public Policy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Diener, E., R. E. Lucas and C. N. Scollon, 2006, “Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill: Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being,” American Psychologist , 61(4): 305–314.
• Diener, E., W. Ng, J. Harter and R. Arora, 2010, “Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 99(1): 52–61.
• Diener, E. and M. Seligman, 2004, “Beyond Money: Toward an economy of well-being,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 5(1): 1–31.
• Diener, E. and E. M. Suh (eds.), 2000, Culture and Subjective Well-Being , Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
• Diener, E., E. M. Suh, R. E. Lucas and H. L. Smith, 1999, “Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress,” Psychological Bulletin , 125(2): 276–302.
• Dolan, P., and L. Kudrna, 2016, “Sentimental Hedonism: Pleasure, Purpose, and Public Policy,” Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being , J. Vittersø (ed.), Berlin: Springer, 437–52.
• Dolan, P. and M. P. White, 2007, “How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform public policy?” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2(1): 71–85.
• Doris, J. M., 2002, Lack of Character , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Skepticism about persons,” Philosophical Issues , 19(1): 57–91.
• –––, 2015, Talking to Our Selves , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Easterlin, R. A., 1974, “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?” Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz , P. A. David and M. W. Reder (eds.), New York: Academic Press.
• –––, 2003, “Explaining Happiness,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 100(19): 11176–11183.
• –––, 2005, “Building a Better Theory of Well-Being,” Economics and Happiness , L. Bruni and P. L. Porta (eds.), New York: Oxford, 29–65.
• Ebenstein, A. O., 1991, The Greatest Happiness Principle: An Examination of Utilitarianism , New York: Garland.
• Edgeworth, F. Y., 1881, Mathematical Psychics: an Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences , London: Kegan Paul.
• Eid, M. and R. J. Larsen (eds.), 2008, The Science of Subjective Well-Being , New York: Guilford.
• Elster, J., 1983, Sour Grapes , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Epictetus, The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, The Manual, and Fragments , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.
• Euler, S. S., 2019, “Psychological Universals in the Study of Happiness: From Social Psychology to Epicurean Philosophy,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 130–37.
• Everett, D. L., 2009, Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle , New York: Random House.
• Feldman, F., 2004, Pleasure and the Good Life , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2010, What Is This Thing Called Happiness? , New York: Oxford.
• –––, 2019, “An Improved Whole Life Satisfaction Theory of Happiness?,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 9(2):1–7.
• Flanagan, O., 2007, The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Flanagan, O., M. Letourneau, and W. Zhao, 2019, “Particulars of Well-Being,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 1–5.
• Fletcher, G., 2013, “A Fresh Start for the Objective-List Theory of Well-Being,” Utilitas , 25(2): 206–20.
• Fleurbaey, M., and D. Blanchet, 2013, Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fogel, R. W., 2005, “Changes in the disparities in chronic diseases during the course of the 20th century,” Perspectives in biology and medicine , 48(1 Supplement): S150-S165.
• Fraser, C., 2013, “Happiness in Classical Confucianism: Xúnzǐ,” E. Minar (ed.), Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 53–79.
• Frederick, S. and G. Loewenstein, 1999, “Hedonic Adaptation,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press: 302–29.
• Fredrickson, B. L., 2004, “The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 359(1449): 1367–1377
• Fredrickson, B. L. and D. Kahneman, 1993, “Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65(1): 45–55.
• Fredrickson, B. L. and M. F. Losada, 2005, “Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing,” American Psychologist , 60(7): 678–686.
• Frey, B. S., 2008, Happiness: A Revolution in Economics , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Frumkin, H., 2001, “Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 20(3): 234–240.
• Gilbert, D., 2006, Stumbling on Happiness , New York: Knopf.
• Gilovitch, T., D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (eds.), 2002, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Glaeser, E. L., 2006, “Paternalism and Psychology,” University of Chicago Law Review , 73(1): 133–156.
• Goldman, A. H., 2016, “Happiness is an Emotion,” The Journal of Ethics , 21(1): 1–16.
• –––, 2019, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Goldstein, I., 1973, “Happiness: The Role of Non-Hedonic Criteria in Its Evaluation,” International Philosophical Quarterly , 13: 523–34.
• –––, 1981, “Cognitive Pleasure and Distress,” Philosophical Studies , 39: 15–23.
• –––, 1989, “Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional, Intrinsic Values,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50(2): 255–276.
• Goldstein, I., 2002, “Are emotions feelings? A further look at hedonic theories of emotions,” Consciousness and Emotion , 3(1): 21–33.
• Graham, C., 2009, Happiness around the world: The paradox of happy peasants and miserable millionaires , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Graham, M., 2017, “A Fate Worse Than Death? The Well-Being of Patients Diagnosed as Vegetative With Covert Awareness,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 20(5): 1–16.
• Griffin, J., 1979, “Is Unhappiness Morally More Important Than Happiness?” Philosophical Quarterly , 29: 47–55.
• –––, 1986, Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2000, “Replies,” Well-Being and Morality , R. Crisp and B. Hooker (eds.), New York: Oxford: 281–313.
• –––, 2007, “What Do Happiness Studies Study?” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8(1): 139–148.
• Griswold, C., 1996, “Happiness, Tranquillity, and Philosophy,” Critical Review , 10(1): 1–32.
• Haidt, J., 2001, “The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment,” Psychological Review , 108(4): 814–834.
• Hare, R. M., 1963, Freedom and Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hausman, D. M., 2010, “Hedonism and Welfare Economics,” Economics and Philosophy , 26(3): 321–44.
• –––, 2011, Preferences, Value, Choice, and Welfare , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hausman, D. M. and B. Welch, 2009, “Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 18(1): 123–136.
• Hawkins, J., 2008, “Well-Being, Autonomy, and the Horizon Problem,” Utilitas , 20(2): 1–27.
• –––, 2014a, “Well-Being, Time, and Dementia,” Ethics , 124(3): 507–542.
• –––, 2014b, “Well-Being: What Matters Beyond the Mental?,” in Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 4), M. Timmons (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, “The Experience Machine and the Experience Requirement,” The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Well-Being , G. Fletcher (ed.), New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2019, “Well-Being, The Self, and Radical Change,” Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol 9 , M. Timmons (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 251.
• Haybron, D. M., 2001, “Happiness and Pleasure,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 62(3): 501–528.
• –––, 2003, “What Do We Want from a Theory of Happiness?” Metaphilosophy , 34(3): 305–329.
• –––, 2005, “On Being Happy or Unhappy,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71(2): 287–317.
• –––, 2007, “Do We Know How Happy We Are?” Nous , 41(3): 394–428.
• –––, 2008a, “Happiness, the Self, and Human Flourishing,” Utilitas , 20(1): 21–49.
• –––, 2008b, The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being , New York, Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, “Central Park: Nature, Context, and Human Wellbeing,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(2): 235–254.
• –––, 2013a, Happiness: A Very Short Introduction , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013b, “The Proper Pursuit of Happiness,” Res Philosophica , 90(3): 387–411.
• –––, 2014, “Adventures in Assisted Living: Well-Being and Situationist Psychology,” The Philosophy and Psychology of Character and Happiness , N. E. Snow and F. V. Trivigno (eds.), New York: Routledge, 1–25.
• –––, 2016, “Mental State Approaches to Well-Being,” The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy , M. D. Adler & M. Fleurbaey (eds.), New York: Oxford, 347–378.
• Haybron, D. M., and A. Alexandrova, 2013, “Paternalism in Economics,” Paternalism: Theory and Practice , C. Coons and M. Weber (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 157–77.
• Haybron, D. M., and V. Tiberius, 2015, “Well-Being Policy: What Standard of Well-Being?,” Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1(4): 712–33.
• Headey, B., 2007, The Set-Point Theory of Well-Being Needs Replacing: On the Brink of a Scientific Revolution? , DIW Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research.
• –––, 2008, “The Set-Point Theory of Well-Being: Negative Results and Consequent Revisions,” Social Indicators Research , 85(3): 389–403.
• Hersch, G., 2015, “Can an Evidential Account Justify Relying on Preferences for Well-Being Policy?,” Journal of Economic Methodology , 22(3): 1–13.
• –––, 2017, “Ignoring Easterlin: Why Easterlin’s Correlation Findings Need Not Matter to Public Policy,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 19(8): 2225–2241.
• –––, 2020, “No Theory-Free Lunches in Well-Being Policy,” The Philosophical Quarterly , 70(278): 43–64.
• Hill, S., 2007, “Haybron on Mood Propensity and Happiness,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 10(2): 215–28.
• Hindriks, F., & Douven, I., 2018, “Nozick’s experience machine: An empirical study,” Philosophical Psychology , 31(2): 1–21.
• Ho, S. M., W. Duan, and S. C. Tang, 2014, “The Psychology of Virtue and Happiness in Western and Asian Thought,” The Philosophy and Psychology of Character and Happiness , N. E. Snow and F. V. Trivigno (eds.), New York: Routledge, 223–46.
• Houlden, V., et al., 2018, “The Relationship between Greenspace and the Mental Wellbeing of Adults: A Systematic Review,” PLOS ONE , 13(9): 1–35.
• Hsee, C. K. and R. Hastie, 2006, “Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10(1): 31–37.
• Hurka, T., 2010, The Best Things in Life: A Guide to What Really Matters , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Huxley, A., 1932 [2005], Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited , New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
• Inglehart, R., R. Foa, C. Peterson and C. Welzel, 2008, “Development, freedom, and rising happiness: A global perspective, 1981–2007” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 3(4): 264–285.
• Inglehart, R. and H.-D. Klingemann, 2000, “Genes, Culture, Democracy, and Happiness,” Culture and Subjective Well-Being , E. Diener and E. M. Suh (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 165–183.
• Intelisano, S., Krasko, J., & Luhmann, M., 2019, “Integrating Philosophical and Psychological Accounts of Happiness and Well-Being,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 8: 1–40.
• Jebb, A. T., L. Tay, E. Diener, and S. Oishi, 2018, “Happiness, Income Satiation and Turning Points around the World,” Nature Human Behaviour , 2(1): 33–38.
• Joshanloo, M., 2013, “A Comparison of Western and Islamic Conceptions of Happiness,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 14(6): 1857–74.
• –––, 2014, “Eastern Conceptualizations of Happiness: Fundamental Differences with Western Views,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 15(2): 475–93.
• Joshanloo, M., and D. Weijers, 2019, “A Two-Dimensional Conceptual Framework for Understanding Mental Well-Being,” PLoS ONE , 14(3): e0214045.
• Kagan, S., 1992, “The Limits of Well-Being,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 9(2): 169–89.
• –––, 1994, “Me and My Life,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 94: 309–324.
• Kahane, Guy, 2011, “Reasons to Feel, Reasons to Take Pills,” Enhancing Human Capacities , J. Savulescu, R. Ter Meulen, and G. Kahane (eds.), Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 166–78.
• Kahneman, D., 1999, “Objective Happiness,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 3–25.
• Kahneman, D. and A. Deaton, 2010, “High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107(38): 16489–16493.
• Kahneman, D., E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), 1999, Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
• Kahneman, D., B. L. Fredrickson, C. A. Schreiber and D. A. Redelmeier, 1993, “When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End,” Psychological Science , 4(6): 401–405.
• Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (eds.), 2000, Choices, Values, and Frames , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kauppinen, A., 2013, “Meaning and Happiness,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 161–185.
• Kazez, J., 2007, The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Kekes, J., 1982, “Happiness,” Mind , 91: 358–76.
• –––, 1988, The Examined Life , Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
• –––, 1992, “Happiness,” Encyclopedia of Ethics , L. C. Becker and C. B. Becker (eds.), New York: Garland: 430–435.
• Kellert, S. R. and E. O. Wilson (eds.), 1995, The Biophilia Hypothesis , Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
• Kelman, M., 2005, “Hedonic Psychology and the Ambiguities of ‘Welfare’,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33(4): 391–412.
• Kenny, A. and C. Kenny, 2006, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Utility , Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic.
• Keyes, C. L., 2002, “The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 43(2): 207–222.
• Kim, R., 2020, Confucianism and the Philosophy of Well-Being , New York: Routledge.
• Klausen, S. H., 2015, “Happiness, Dispositions and the Self,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 17(3): 777–780.
• –––, 2019, “Understanding Older Adults’ Wellbeing from a Philosophical Perspective,” Journal of Happiness Studies , online first.
• Kraut, R., 1979, “Two Conceptions of Happiness,” The Philosophical Review , 138: 167–97.
• –––, 2018, The Quality of Life: Aristotle Revised , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kristjánsson, K., 2010, “Positive psychology, happiness, and virtue: The troublesome conceptual issues,” Review of general psychology , 14(4): 296.
• –––, 2012, “Positive Psychology and Positive Education: Old Wine in New Bottles?” Educational Psychologist , 47(2): 86–105.
• –––, 2018, “The flourishing–happiness concordance thesis: Some troubling counterexamples,” The Journal of Positive Psychology , 13(6): 541–552.
• Krueger, A., D. Kahneman, C. Fischler, D. Schkade, N. Schwarz and A. Stone, 2009, “Time Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and the U.S,” Social Indicators Research ,(93): 7–18.
• Larsen, R. J. and Z. Prizmic, 2008, “Regulation of Emotional Well-Being: Overcoming the Hedonic Treadmill,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press: 258–289.
• Lauinger, W., 2015, “A Framework for Understanding Parental Well-Being,” Philosophia , 43(3): 847–868.
• Layard, R., 2005, Happiness: Lessons from a new science , New York: Penguin.
• LeBar, M., and D. Russell, 2013, “Well-Being and Eudaimonia: A Reply to Haybron,” Aristotelian Ethics in Contemporary Perspective , 21: 52.
• Lin, E., 2015, “How to Use the Experience Machine,” Utilitas , 28(3): 314–32.
• Loewenstein, G. and E. Haisley, 2008, “The Economist as Therapist: Methodological Ramifications of ‘Light’ Paternalism,” The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics , A. Caplin and A. Schotter (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 210–248.
• Lucas, R. E., 2008, “Personality and Subjective Well-Being,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press: 171–194.
• Lucas, R. E., A. E. Clark, Y. Georgellis and E. Diener, 2004a, “Re-Examining Adaptation and the Setpoint Model of Happiness: Reactions to Changes in Marital Status,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84: 527–539.
• –––, 2004b, “Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction,” Psychological Science , 15(1): 8–13.
• Luhmann, M., and S. Intelisano, 2018, “Hedonic Adaptation and the Set Point for Subjective Well-Being,” Handbook of Well-Being , E. Diener, S. Oishi, and L. Tay (eds.), Salt Lake City: DEF Publishers.
• Lumber, R., M. Richardson, and D. Sheffield, 2017, “Beyond Knowing Nature: Contact, Emotion, Compassion, Meaning, and Beauty Are Pathways to Nature Connection,” PLOS ONE , 12(5): e0177186.
• Luo, S., 2018, “Happiness and the Good Life: A Classical Confucian Perspective,” Dao , 71(2): 1–18.
• Lykken, D. and A. Tellegen, 1996, “Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon,” Psychological Science , 7(3): 186–9.
• Lyubomirsky, S., 2007, The How of Happiness , New York: Penguin.
• Lyubomirsky, S., L. King and E. Diener, 2005, “The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?” Psychological Bulletin , 131(6): 803–855.
• Lyubomirsky, S., K. M. Sheldon and D. Schkade, 2005, “Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change,” Review of General Psychology , 9(2): 111–131.
• MacLeod, A. K., 2015, “Well-Being: Objectivism, Subjectivism or Sobjectivism?,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 16 1073–1089.
• Martin, M. W., 2012, Happiness and the Good Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• May, T., 2015, A Significant Life Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mayerfeld, J., 1996, “The Moral Asymmetry of Happiness and Suffering,” Southern Journal of Philosophy , 34: 317–338.
• –––, 1999, Suffering and Moral Responsibility , New York: Oxford.
• McFall, L., 1989, Happiness , New York: Peter Lang.
• McMahon, D. M., 2005, Happiness: A History , New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
• McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Metz, T., 2014, “Gross National Happiness: A Philosophical Appraisal,” Ethics and Social Welfare , 8(3): 218–32.
• Meynell, H., 1969, “Human Flourishing,” Religious Studies , 5: 147–154.
• Millgram, E., 2000, “What’s the Use of Utility,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 29(2): 113–136.
• Mitchell, P., 2018, “Adaptive Preferences, Adapted Preferences,” Mind , 127(508): 1003–25.
• Moller, D., 2011, “Wealth, Disability, and Happiness,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 39(2): 177–206.
• Montague, R., 1967, “Happiness,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 67: 87–102.
• Morris, S., 2011, “In defense of the hedonistic account of happiness,” Philosophical Psychology , 24(2): 261 – 281.
• –––, 2015, Science and the End of Ethics , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mulligan, K., 2016, “Happiness, Luck and Satisfaction.,” ARGUMENTA , 1(2): 133–45.
• Mulnix, J. W., & Mulnix, M. J., 2015a, Happy Lives, Good Lives: A Philosophical Examination , Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
• ––– (eds.), 2015b, Theories of Happiness: An Anthology , Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
• Murphy, M. C., 2001, Natural Law and Practical Rationality , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Myers, D. G. and E. Diener, 1995, “Who Is Happy?” Psychological Science , 6(1): 10–19.
• Nettle, D., 2005, Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Noddings, N., 2003, Happiness and Education , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M. C., 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2008, “Who Is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” The Journal of Legal Studies , 37(s2): S81-S113.
• Oishi, S., Choi, H., Buttrick, N., et al., 2019, “The psychologically rich life questionnaire,” Journal of Research in Personality , 81: 257–270.
• Parducci, A., 1995, Happiness, Pleasure, and Judgement: The Contextual Theory and Its Applications , Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Parfit, D., 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Paul, L. A., 2016, Transformative Experience , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pavot, W., 2008, “The Assessment of Subjective Well-Being: Successes and Shortfalls,” The Science of Subjective Well-Being , M. Eid and R. J. Larsen (eds.), New York: Guilford Press, 124–140.
• Phillips, J., L. Misenheimer and J. Knobe, 2011, “The Ordinary Concept of Happiness (and Others Like It),” Emotion Review , 71: 929–937.
• Phillips, J., S. Nyholm, and S. Liao, 2014, “The Good in Happiness,” Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy (Volume 1), T. Lombrozo, S. Nichols, and J. Knobe (eds.), 253–93.
• Phillips, J., De Freitas, J., Mott, C., Gruber, J., & Knobe, J., 2017, “True happiness: The role of morality in the folk concept of happiness,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 146(2): 165–181.
• Posner, E. and C. R. Sunstein (eds.), 2010, Law and Happiness , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Purcell, S., 2013, “Natural Goodness and the Normativity Challenge: Happiness Across Cultures,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association , 87: 183–94.
• Quong, J., 2011, Liberalism Without Perfection , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Raibley, J., 2010, “Well-being and the priority of values,” Social Theory and Practice , 36(4): 593–620.
• –––, 2011, “Happiness is not Well-Being,” Journal of Happiness Studies , 13(6): 1105–1121.
• –––, 2012, “Health and Well-Being,” Philosophical Studies , 165(2): 469–89.
• –––, 2013, “Values, Agency, and Welfare,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 187–214.
• Rawls, J., 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Raz, J., 1986, The Morality of Freedom , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2004, “The Role of Well-Being,” Philosophical Perspectives , 18(1): 269–294.
• Rescher, N., 1972, Welfare: The Social Issues In Philosophical Perspective , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• –––, 1980, Unpopular Essays on Technological Progress , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Ricard, M., 2006, Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill , New York: Little, Brown and Co.
• Roberts, R. C., 2019, “Joys: A Brief Moral and Christian Geography,” Faith and Philosophy , 36(2): 195–222.
• Rodogno, R., 2014, “Happiness and Well-Being: Shifting the Focus of the Current Debate,” South African Journal of Philosophy , 33(4): 433–46.
• –––, 2015, “Prudential Value or Well-Being,” Handbook of Value , T. Brosch and D. Sander (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 287–312.
• Rodogno, R., Krause-Jensen, K., & Ashcroft, R. E., 2016, “‘Autism and the good life’: a new approach to the study of well-being,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 42(6): 401–408.
• Ross, L. and R. E. Nisbett, 1991, The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Rossi, M., 2018, “Happiness, Pleasures, and Emotions,” Philosophical Psychology , 31(6): 898–919.
• Rossi, M., & Tappolet, C., 2016, “Virtue, Happiness, and Well-Being,” The Monist , 99(2): 112–127.
• Russell, D., 2013, Happiness for Humans , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci, 2001, “On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being,” Annual Review of Psychology , 52: 141–166.
• Ryff, C. D., 1989, “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57(6): 1069–1081.
• Samson, C., 2019, “Indigenous and Western Views of Happiness: An Essay on the Politics of Contentment,” Regimes of Happiness: Comparative and Historical Studies , B. Turner, J. T. Jen, and Y. Contreras-Vejar (eds.), London: Anthem Press, 219–34.
• Savulescu, J., R. Ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 2011, Enhancing Human Capacities , Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
• Scanlon, T., 1999, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schooler, J. W., D. Ariely and G. Loewenstein, 2003, “The Pursuit and Assessment of Happiness Can Be Self-Defeating,” The Psychology of Economic Decision , I. Brocas and J. Carillo (eds.), New York: Oxford University.
• Schultz, B., 2017, The Happiness Philosophers , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schwartz, B., 2004, The Paradox of Choice , New York: HarperCollins.
• Schwarz, N. and F. Strack, 1999, “Reports of Subjective Well-Being: Judgmental Processes and Their Methodological Implications,” Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology , D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (eds.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press: 61–84.
• Schwitzgebel, E., 2008, “The Unreliability of Naive Introspection,” Philosophical Review , 117(2): 245–273.
• –––, 2011, Perplexities of Consciousness , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Schwitzgebel, E. and R. T. Hurlburt, 2007, Describing Inner Experience? Proponent Meets Skeptic , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Scruton, R., 1975, Reason and Happiness. Nature and Conduct , R. S. Peters (ed.), New York: Macmillan: 139–61.
• Seligman, M., 2002, Authentic Happiness , New York: Free Press.
• –––, 2011, Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Sen, A., 1987a, Commodities and Capabilities , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1987b, On Ethics and Economics , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• –––, 2009, The Idea of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sidgwick, H., 1907 [1966], The Methods of Ethics , New York: Dover Publications.
• Silventoinen, K., S. Sammalisto, M. Perola, D. I. Boomsma, B. K. Cornes, C. Davis, L. Dunkel, M. De Lange, J. R. Harris and J. V. B. Hjelmborg, 2003, “Heritability of adult body height: a comparative study of twin cohorts in eight countries,” Twin Research , 6(5): 399–408.
• Singer, P., 1972, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1(3): 229–243.
• Singh, R., and A. Alexandrova, forthcoming, “Happiness Economics as Technocracy,” Behavioural Public Policy , first online 12 Dec 2019: doi:10.17863/CAM.46854
• Sizer, L., 2010, “Good and good for you: An affect theory of happiness,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 80(1): 133–163.
• Skidelsky, E., 2014, “What Can We Learn From Happiness Surveys?,” Journal of Practical Ethics , 2(2): 20–32.
• –––, 2017, “Happiness, Pleasure, and Belief,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 95(3): 435–446.
• Slote, M., 1982, “Goods and Lives,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 63: 311–26.
• –––, 1983, Goods and Virtues , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Smart, J. J. C., 1973, “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics,” Utilitarianism: For and Against , J. J. C. Smart and B. Williams, New York: Cambridge University Press: 3–74.
• Snow, N. E., and Trivigno, F. V., 2014, The Philosophy and Psychology of Character and Happiness , New York: Routledge.
• Sosis, C., 2012, “Happiness: The Potential Power of Environment,” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication , 7: 1–10.
• –––, 2014, “Hedonic possibilities and heritability statistics,” Philosophical Psychology , 27(5): 681–702.
• Spahn, A., 2015, “Can Technology Make Us Happy?,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Cham: Springer, 93–113.
• Sprigge, T. L. S., 1987, The Rational Foundations of Ethics , New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1991, “The Greatest Happiness Principle,” Utilitas , 3(1): 37–51.
• Stenberg, J., 2019, “The All-Happy God,” Faith and Philosophy , 36(4): 423–41.
• Stevenson, C. M., 2018, “Experience Machines, Conflicting Intuitions and the Bipartite Characterization of Well-Being,” Utilitas , 30(4): 383–98.
• Stevenson, B. and J. Wolfers, 2008, “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , Spring 2008: 1–87.
• Stiglitz, J. E., J.-P. Fitoussi, and M. Durand, 2019, Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-Being , New York: New Press.
• Stiglitz, J. E., Amartya. Sen, and J.-Paul. Fitoussi, 2009, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress , Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
• Sugden, R., 2008, “Capability, Happiness, and Opportunity,” Capabilities and Happiness , L. Bruni, F. Comim, and M. Pugno (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 299–322.
• Suikkanen, J., 2011, “An Improved Whole Life Satisfaction Theory of Happiness,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1): 1–18.
• –––, 2019. “The Advice Models of Happiness: A Response to Feldman,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 9(2), available online , doi:10.5502/ijw.v9i2.837
• Sumner, L. W., 1996, Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2000, “Something In Between,” Well-Being and Morality , R. Crisp and B. Hooker (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1–19.
• Tatarkiewicz, W., 1976, Analysis of Happiness , The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Telfer, E., 1980, Happiness , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Thaler, R. H. and C. R. Sunstein, 2008, Nudge : improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Thomas, D. A. L., 1968, “Happiness,” Philosophical Quarterly , 18: 97–113.
• Tiberius, V., 2006, “Well-Being: Psychological Research for Philosophers,” Philosophy Compass , 1: 493–505.
• –––, 2008, The Reflective Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2014, Moral Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction , New York: Routledge
• –––, 2018, Well-Being As Value Fulfillment , New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
• Tiberius, V. and A. Plakias, 2010, “Well-Being,” The Moral Psychology Handbook , J. Doris, G. Harman, S. Nichols, et al . (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Trout, J. D., 2005, “Paternalism and Cognitive Bias,” Law and Philosophy , 24: 393–434.
• –––, 2009, The Empathy Gap: Building bridges to the good life and the good society , New York: Viking Press.
• Trout, J. D., and S. A. Buttar, 2000, “Resurrecting ‘Death Taxes’: Inheritance, Redistribution, and the Science of Happiness,” Journal of Law & Politics , 16(4): 765–847.
• van der Deijl, Willem, 2016, “What Happiness Science Can Learn from John Stuart Mill,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 6(1): 164–79.
• –––, 2017a, “Are Measures of Well-Being Philosophically Adequate?,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 47(3): 209–34.
• –––, 2017b, The Measurement of Wellbeing in Economics: Philosophical Explorations , Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
• –––, 2017c, “Which Problem of Adaptation?,” Utilitas , 29(4): 474–92.
• van der Rijt, J.-W., 2013, “Public Policy and the Conditional Value of Happiness,” Economics and Philosophy , 29(3): 381–408.
• –––, 2015, “The Political Turn Towards Happiness,” Well-Being in Contemporary Society , J. H. Søraker, et al. (eds.), Cham: Springer, 215–31.
• Veenhoven, R., 1984, Conditions of Happiness , Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• –––, 1997, “Advances in Understanding Happiness,” Revue Québécoise de Psychologie , 18: 29–79.
• –––, 2005, “Is Life Getting Better? How Long and Happily Do People Live in Modern Society?” European Psychologist , 10(4): 330–343.
• Velleman, J. D., 1991, “Well-Being and Time,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 72(1): 48–77.
• Verhoef, A., 2018, “Paul Ricoeur: Philosophy, Theology and Happiness,” Stellenbosch Theological Journal , 4(2): 151–66.
• Vitrano, C., 2010, “The subjectivity of happiness,” Journal of Value Inquiry , 44(1): 47–54.
• –––, 2014, The Nature and Value of Happiness , Boulder: Westview Press.
• Višak, T., 2015, “Sacrifices of Self Are Prudential Harms: A Reply to Carbonell,” The Journal of Ethics , 19(2): 219–29.
• Vittersø, J., ed., 2016, Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being , Berlin: Springer.
• Von Wright, G. H., 1963, The Varieties of Goodness , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Walker, M., 2011, “Happy-People-Pills for All,” International Journal of Wellbeing , 1(1): 1–22.
• Waterman, A. S., 1993, “Two Conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of Personal Expressiveness (Eudaimonia) and Hedonic Enjoyment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64(4): 678–691.
• –––, ed., 2013, The Best within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia , Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Weijers, D., 2013, “Intuitive Biases in Judgments about Thought Experiments: The Experience Machine Revisited,” Philosophical Writings , 41(1): 17–31.
• –––, 2014, “Nozick’s experience machine is dead, long live the experience machine!,” Philosophical Psychology , 27(4): 513–535.
• White, M. D., 2013, “Can We—and Should We—Measure Well-Being?,” Review of Social Economy , 71(4): 526–33.
• White, M. P. and P. Dolan, 2009, “Accounting for the Richness of Daily Activities,” Psychological Science , 20(8): 1000–1008.
• White, N. P., 2006, A Brief History of Happiness , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wierzbicka, A., 2004, “‘Happiness’ in cross-linguistic & cross-cultural perspective,” Daedalus , 133(2): 34–43.
• Williams, B., 1981, Moral Luck. Moral Luck , New York, Cambridge University Press: 20–39.
• Wilson, J., 1968, “Happiness,” Analysis , 29: 13–21.
• Wodak, D., 2019, “What If Well-Being Measurements Are Non-Linear?,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 97(1): 29–45.
• Wong, D. B., 2013, “On Learning What Happiness Is,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 81–101.
• Wren-Lewis, S, 2013, “Well-Being as a Primary Good: Towards Legitimate Well-Being Policy,” Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly , 31(2): 2–9.
• –––, 2014, “How successfully can we measure well-being through measuring happiness?,” South African Journal of Philosophy , 33: 417–432.
• –––, 2019, The Happiness Problem: Expecting Better in an Uncertain World , Chicago, IL: Policy Press.
• Zamuner, E., 2013, “Happiness, Consciousness, and the Ontology of Mind,” Philosophical Topics , 41(1): 237–54.
• Zhang, E. Y., 2019, “Forgetfulness and Flow: ‘Happiness’ in Zhuangzi’s Daoism,” Science, Religion and Culture , 6(1): 77–84.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• World Database of Happiness , Erasmus University of Rotterdam.
• Positive Psychology Center , University of Pennsylvania.
• The Happiness and Well-Being Project , with Suggested Readings and links to Funded Research , Saint Louis University.

Aquinas, Thomas | Aristotle | Bentham, Jeremy | character, moral: empirical approaches | communitarianism | consequentialism | economics: philosophy of | emotion | ethics: ancient | ethics: virtue | hedonism | Kant, Immanuel | liberalism | Mill, John Stuart | moral psychology: empirical approaches | pain | paternalism | Plato | pleasure | well-being

Acknowledgments

For helpful comments, many thanks are due to Anna Alexandrova, Robert Biswas-Diener, Thomas Carson, Irwin Goldstein, Richard Lucas, Jason Raibley, Eric Schwitzgebel, Stephen Schueller, Adam Shriver, Edward Zalta, and an anonymous referee for the SEP. Portions of Section 2 are adapted from Haybron 2008, “Philosophy and the Science of Subjective Well-Being,” in Eid and Larsen, The Science of Subjective Well-Being , and used with kind permission of Guilford Press.

Copyright © 2020 by Dan Haybron < dan . haybron @ slu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Psychology of Happiness: A Summary of the Theory & Research

Little did I know the overwhelming depth of this topic! I found myself asking questions – can science explain happiness?

Can happiness be measured? What is happiness, anyway?

Arguably, a lot has been written on the topic of happiness , including on this website. The following provides an exploration of happiness, and, importantly, it provides you with links to further resources on this important topic.

Keep reading to discover a range of topics including the main theories of happiness, and a fascinating look at the neuroscience of happiness, as well as an interesting discussion on topics such as subjective wellbeing (the more scientific term for happiness), what positive psychology has to say about happiness, success and happiness, and more. Hopefully, it will answer some questions about happiness. Please enjoy!

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Happiness & Subjective Wellbeing Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients identify sources of authentic happiness and strategies to boost wellbeing.

This Article Contains:

A scientific explanation of happiness, a look at the theory and science of happiness, the psychology of happiness, happiness and positive psychology, interesting research and studies, the happiness research institute, the happiness professor, other well-known researchers, articles on success and happiness, 16 most important happiness articles, other recommended journal and scholarly articles (pdf), a take-home message.

What exactly do we mean when we talk about a scientific explanation of happiness? What, in fact, is the science of happiness?

Put very simply, the science of happiness looks at “ what makes happy people happy ” (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018). If you think about it, the subjective nature of happiness makes it incredibly difficult to define and also challenging to measure (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

Let’s look into this further …

In the past

Happiness has been the topic of discussion and debate since the ancient Greek times. Hedonism has a long history (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Science has looked closely at happiness as ‘hedonically’ defined – or, in other words, happiness is the outcome of the pursuit of pleasure over pain (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Aristippus, a Greek philosopher from the 4th century BC claimed happiness was the sum of life’s ‘hedonic’ moments (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonic enjoyment is a state whereby an individual feels relaxed, has a sense of distance from their problems and, can be said to feel ‘happy’ (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Since the days of Aristotle, happiness has been conceptualized as being composed of at least 2 aspects – hedonia (or, pleasure) and eudaimonia (a sense that life is well-lived) (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

In the present

What does science say about this? Well, research has shown that, whilst these two aspects are definitely distinct and that, in ‘happy’ people, both hedonic and eudaimonic components of happiness correspond (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

A study by Kesebir and Diener (2008) report that in happiness surveys , more than 80% of interviewees rated their overall ‘eudaimonic’ life satisfaction as “pretty to very happy” and, at the same time, 80% of people interviewed also rate their current, hedonic ‘mood’ as positive (e.g. giving a rating of 6-7 on a 10-point valence scale, where 5 is ‘hedonically neutral’).

Neuroscientists have made substantial progress into investigating the functional neuroanatomy of pleasure (which, according to Kringelbach and Berridge 2010, makes an important contribution to our experience of happiness and plays a key role in our sense of wellbeing).

Pleasure has, for many years in the discipline of psychology, been closely associated with happiness (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

According to Sigmund Freud (1930), people: ‘ strive after happiness; they want to become happy and to remain so. This endeavor has two sides, a positive and a negative aim. It aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and displeasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure ’ (p. 76).

Kringelbach and Berridge (2010) argue that the neuroscience of both pleasure and happiness can be found by studying hedonic brain circuits. This is because, according to most modern perspectives, pleasure is an important component of happiness.

Does this provide the opportunity to ‘measure’ happiness, therefore providing a scientific explanation of happiness?

In fact, work of neuroscientists has found that pleasure is not merely a sensation, or thought, but rather an outcome of brain activity in dedicated ‘hedonic systems’ (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

All pleasures, from the most fundamental (food, sexual pleasure) right through to higher-order pleasures (e.g. monetary, medical, and altruistic pleasures) seem to involve the same brain systems (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

Some of the hedonic mechanisms are found deep within the brain (the nucleus accumbens, ventral pallidum, and brainstem) and others are located in the cortex (orbitofrontal, cingulate, medial prefrontal and insular cortices) (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

In the future

It can be said, then, that pleasure activated brain networks are widespread. Despite this exciting finding – a brain network for happiness – Kringelbach and Berridge (2010) say that further research is needed to fully comprehend the functional neuroanatomy of happiness.

As well as the findings from neuroscience supporting an anatomical basis to happiness, another component of a scientific explanation of happiness is the issue of measurement.

Can happiness be measured?

Some individuals argue that maybe happiness should not be the subject of scientific explanation because it is impossible to objectively measure it (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Perhaps, though, as argued by Ed Diener, happiness is subjective. According to Ed Diener, people are happy if they think they are, and each person is the best judge of whether they are, in fact, happy or not (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

He introduced a term to describe this ‘measure’ of happiness: Subjective wellbeing .

Having the measure of subjective wellbeing makes a scientific explanation of happiness possible… by asking questions such as:

• Are you happy?
• How would you rate your happiness on a scale of 1 – 10

Controlled experiments can be devised to determine what can be done to raise/lower these responses.

The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) has been valuable in the assessment of subjective wellbeing. It has been a positive development in the science of happiness.

ESM provides an overall indication of wellbeing over time, based on the total balance of measurement of positive and negative affect at different times (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Diener provided evidence that subjective wellbeing has “construct validity” meaning that, yes, it is measuring something ‘real’! This is because Diener showed that subjective wellbeing is constant over time, is highly correlated with some personality traits and has the capacity to predict future outcomes.

Diener and colleagues suggest that it is possible to measure happiness using valid, reliable methods including using instruments, looking at observable indicators of happiness such as smiling behavior, and objective reports from one’s friends and family (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Nevertheless, many critics have opposed the concept of subjective wellbeing, including psychologist Michael Argyle (2001). Argyle states

“the main weakness of subjective measure is that they are affected by cognitive biases such as the effects of expectation and adaptation so that we don’t know how far to believe the scores”

However, other researchers have developed several well-validated scales for measuring happiness, supporting its’ validity as a scientific construct.

The Steen Happiness Index (Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson, 2005)

Consists of twenty items. Participants read a series of statements and select the one that best describes how they are at the present time. Items indicate three kinds of ‘happy life’ – the pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life.

These dimensions will be explored closely very soon!

Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999)

Consists of four items to assess global subjective happiness. The participants read four statements, including ‘In general, I consider myself…’ and the individual then selects an item from 1 to 7 from, for example, ‘not a very happy person’ to ‘a very happy person’.

Test-retest and self-peer correlations have suggested good to excellent reliability, and construct validation studies of convergent and discriminant validity have confirmed the use of this scale to measure the construct of subjective happiness.

Happiness Scale (Fordyce, 1977)

This scale is also referred to as the Emotion Questionnaire as it assesses emotional wellbeing as an indication of perceived happiness. It is comprised of two items. The first is a scale measuring happiness/unhappiness by participants ranking descriptive phrases on a 0 – 10 scale.

The other item making up the test requires participants to give an approximate percentage of time that he/she feels happy, unhappy and neutral. The test has shown to have adequate reliability and validity.

Therefore, evidence from neuroscience, paired with evidence from the measurement of subjective wellbeing, or, happiness, suggest that a scientific explanation of happiness is, in fact, possible.

It is overwhelming to consider what happiness is… where to begin?! Happiness has been the topic of discussion and debate since the ancient Greek times.

In 1973, ‘Psychology Abstracts International’ began listing happiness as an index term (Diener, 1984). However, because happiness is a term that is used widely and frequently, it has various meanings and connotations (Diener, 1984).

The construct of happiness is still evolving, and although challenging to define, it is a construct that can be empirically evaluated through qualitative and quantitative assessment (Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick & Wissing, 2011). Delle Fave and colleagues (2011) noted that happiness is also an ambiguous term which can have a number of meanings:

• A transient emotion (that is synonymous with joy)
• An experience of fulfillment and accomplishment (characterized by a cognitive evaluation)
• A long-term process of meaning-making and identity development through achieving one’s potential and the pursuit of subjectively relevant goals.

Historically, since the days of Aristotle, happiness has been conceptualized as being composed of at least 2 aspects – hedonia (or, pleasure) and eudaimonia (a sense that a life is well-lived) (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

Research has shown that, whilst these two aspects are definitely distinct, that in ‘happy’ people, both hedonic and eudaimonic components of happiness correspond (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010).

A study by Kesebir and Diener (2008) report that in happiness surveys, more than 80% of interviewees rated their overall ‘eudaimonic’ life satisfaction as “pretty to very happy” and, at the same time, 80% of the people interviewed also rate their current, hedonic ‘mood’ as positive (e.g. giving a rating of 6-7 on a 10-point valence scale, where 5 is ‘hedonically neutral’).

Moving forward into the modern era, there is some agreement about the aspects that make up theories of happiness. There are, according to Haybron (2003), when looking at theories of happiness, 3 basic views:

• Hedonism – in other words, to be happy is to experience, on the whole, a majority of pleasure. Hedonia.
• Life-satisfaction view – to be happy is to have a favorable attitude about one’s life as a whole, either over its entirety or just over a limited period of time. Eudaimonia.
• Affective state theory – that happiness depends on an individual’s overall emotional state.

Other theories of happiness are so-called ‘hybrid’ theories that combine the life satisfaction theory with other hedonistic or affective-state theories (Haybron, 2003). One of these hybrid theories is the one that is the most widely accepted theory of happiness: subjective wellbeing (Haybron, 2003). Subjective wellbeing is considered to be a more scientific term than happiness.

A closer look at hedonia

Hedonism has a long history (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Science has looked closely at happiness as ‘hedonically’ defined – or, in other words, the pursuit of pleasure over pain (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Aristippus, a Greek philosopher from the 4th century BC claimed happiness was the sum of life’s ‘hedonic’ moments (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Hedonic enjoyment is a state whereby an individual feels relaxed, has a sense of distance from their problems and, can be said to feel ‘happy’ (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Hedonia refers, in simple terms, to the pursuit of pleasure. It was argued by Hobbes that happiness is found in the successful pursuit of our human appetites, and DeSade went on to say that the pursuit of sensation and pleasure is the ultimate goal of life (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

The Utilitarian philosophers, including Bentham, put forth the argument that a good society is one which is developed out of individuals attempting to maximize pleasure and pursue self-interest (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

It should be clarified that hedonia, in respects to happiness, does not have the same meaning as physical hedonism: happiness can come not only from short-term pleasure, but can also arise from achieving goals or other valued outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2001). So-called hedonic psychologists are of the belief that happiness can include the preferences and pleasures of the mind, as well as the body (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Kahneman (1999) defined hedonic psychology as the study of “what makes experiences and life pleasant and unpleasant” (p. ix). Within the framework of hedonic psychology, the terms wellbeing and hedonism are used interchangeably (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonic psychology explains wellbeing in terms of pleasure versus pain, and it, therefore, becomes the center of much research and also interventions that principally aim to enhance human happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Hedonic psychology has been a focus of the theory of happiness, in part, due to the links between hedonia and other dominant theories. For example, hedonia ties in with behavioral theories of reward and punishment, as well as theories that focus on the cognitive expectations of the outcomes of reward and punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Despite there being a variety of ways to consider the human experience of pleasure/pain, the majority of research in hedonic psychology looks into the assessment of subjective wellbeing. To introduce the term, briefly, subjective wellbeing (or ‘happiness’) consists of three components (Ryan & Deci, 2001):

• Life satisfaction
• The presence of a positive mood
• The absence of a negative mood

Elsewhere in this website, you can read more about eudaimonia and the Aristotelian view of happiness . For the purpose of exploring theories of happiness, I will briefly look at eudaimonia now:

What is eudaimonia? (The life satisfaction view of happiness)

Aristotle argued that, because of man’s unique capacity to reason, pleasure alone cannot achieve happiness – because animals are driven to seek pleasure, and man has greater capacity than animals (The Pursuit of Happiness, 2018).

In striving for happiness, the most important factor is for a person to have ‘complete virtue’ – in other words, to have good moral character (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018).

Eudaimonia was, according to Aristotle, “activity expressing virtue” that will therefore lead to a happy life. Aristotle proposed that happiness was neither virtue, or pleasure, but rather the exercise of virtue.

The argument taken by the Aristotelian view is that happiness, per se, is not the principal criterion of wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Proponents of this view see wellbeing as achieved by people living in accordance with the ‘daimon’ (true self). (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Eudaimonic theories of happiness argue that rather than the pursuit of pleasure, happiness is the result of the development of individual strengths and virtues (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

The theory of eudaimonic happiness has its basis in the concept of the self-actualising individual (proposed by Maslow ) and the concept of the ‘fully functioning person’ (Rogers) (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). Many modern scientific explanations of happiness are conducive with the theory of eudaimonic happiness.

For example, Waterman suggested that happiness is enhanced by people acting in accordance with their most deeply held values (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). Waterman also introduced the term ‘personal expressiveness’ to describe the state of authenticity that occurs when people’s activities reflect their values.

The eudaimonic theory of happiness adopts the Self-Determination Theory to conceptualize happiness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This theory argues that fulfillment in the areas of autonomy and competence will enhance happiness. In other words, this view suggests that subjective wellbeing (i.e. happiness) can be achieved through engaging in eudaimonic pursuits (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Affective state theory

To recap, this theory of happiness proposes that happiness is the result of one’s overall emotional state. Bradburn (1969) put forward the argument that happiness is made up of two separate components that are quite independent and uncorrelated: positive affect and negative affect. According to Bradburn, happiness is a global judgment people make by comparing their negative affect and positive affect (Diener, 1984).

This led to the development of the Affect Balance Scale (Diener, 1984). The Bradburn Affect Balance Scale is a self-report measure of the quality of life. The scale is made up of descriptions of ten mood states (for example, item one is feeling “particularly excited or interested in something”), and the subject reflects upon whether they have been in that mood state during the last week.

A measure of the quality of life, as an indication of happiness, is derived by the sum of the ‘negative’ items are taken away from the sum of the ‘positive’ items (Diener, 1984).

Affect state theory also takes the view that the absence of negative affect is not the same thing as the presence of positive affect (Diener, 1984).

Theories developed by positive psychologists

The discipline of positive psychology has developed some unique theories of happiness. For example, Seligman (2002) introduced the Authentic Happiness theory. This theory is based around the notion that authentic happiness results from a person living according to their ‘signature strengths’ which develop as people become aware of their own personal strengths and take ownership of them (Seligman, 2002).

Another theory of happiness is Csikszentmihalyi’s ‘flow’ theory. Flow may be defined as “ the state of engagement, optimal happiness, and peak experience that occurs when an individual is absorbed in a demanding and intrinsically motivating challenge ” (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008, p. 395). This state of engagement has been proposed to be a pathway to happiness (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Some psychologists suggest that perhaps, in fact, happiness is relative – or, in other words, it is an evaluation of subjective judgments about one’s situations, comparing others’ situations to one’s own or even one’s earlier situations, goals or aspirations (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). This argument has, however, been refuted.

Veenhoven explains that comparison may affect the cognitive or life-satisfaction aspects of happiness, but that the affective component results from hedonic experience (meeting one’s fundamental needs) and is therefore quite separate of any comparisons (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

To summarise these related topics – the scientific explanation of happiness and the theory and science of happiness – there are a number of theories conceptualizing happiness and in keeping with these theories, the term can have slightly different meanings.

Download 3 Free Happiness Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover authentic happiness and cultivate subjective well-being.

Download 3 Free Happiness Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Way back in 1929, Walter A. Pitkin wrote ‘ The Psychology of Happiness ’ and in this book, he differentiated between happiness and related emotions including pleasure and enjoyment (Samuel, 2019). He argued that achieving happiness was not merely the result of luck or chance. Since this time, psychologists have continued to try and define happiness.

According to psychology, happiness is about more than simply the experience of a positive mood. In order to describe happiness, psychologists commonly refer to subjective wellbeing (Kesebir & Diener, 2008). In other words, happiness is “ people’s evaluations of their lives and encompasses both cognitive judgments of satisfaction and affective appraisals of moods and emotions ” (Kesebir & Diener, 2008, p. 118).

The psychological inquiry into happiness is important because happiness is not only associated with improved physical health and even longevity, but it is also a priority for people – across the world, happiness has been rated as being more important than other desirable outcomes including living a meaningful life or making a lot of money (Psychology Today, 2019).

There are three ways that psychologists study happiness:

1. Need and goal satisfaction theories

These theories suggest that happiness results from striving to achieve appropriate goals and meeting one’s fundamental human needs (Nelson, Kurtz & Lyubomirsky, in press). Deci and Ryan (2000) for example, proposed Self-determination Theory, which stipulates that wellbeing is achieved when one meets their basic human needs including autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

2. Genetic and personality predisposition theories

These propose that wellbeing is influenced by genes, and is associated with the personality traits of extraversion and neuroticism (Nelson et al., in press). This, in turn, implies that wellbeing does not change much over time.

3. Process/activity theories

Process/activity theories argue that wellbeing may be improved by participating in activities that are engaging and require effort (Nelson et al., in press).

Psychologists ask the question, ‘is it possible to increase one’s happiness?’. Some psychologists claim that making an attempt to enhance happiness is pointless because happiness levels are predetermined and stable over time (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Consistent with this argument is the happiness set point. The happiness set point argues that a person’s state of happiness will be constant over time, regardless of changes in circumstances (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Adapting to environmental changes is termed ‘the hedonic treadmill ’ or ‘homeostatic control’ (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). This notion of adaptation (leading to relatively stable levels of happiness) is supported by findings in research that individuals who may be high in either positive or negative affect (e.g. lottery winners, paralysis victims) demonstrate that their happiness levels revert to their ‘usual’ range after a period of time (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Some psychologists argue that the happiness set point provides evidence that happiness cannot be enhanced (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). There is a perspective taken by some psychologists that happiness is a ‘trait’ or a personal disposition to experience a certain affect.

This perspective suggests that happiness is relatively stable over time, and therefore efforts to increase happiness are futile (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008). However, research has shown that although subjective wellbeing may be associated with personality traits (e.g. extraversion), that differences in reports of happiness levels over time suggest that, in fact, happiness is not a trait (Norrish & Vella-Brodrick, 2008).

Thus, happiness has been an important area of focus for psychologists. What, then, about the more recent science of happiness…positive psychology?

Positive psychology can be described as a psychology of potential, and what ‘could be’ as compared to what ‘is’ (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). It aims to shift what has historically been the predominant focus of psychology – pathology – to examining the development of positive qualities in individuals and communities (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

In other words, Positive Psychology aims to understand and cultivate the factors that put individuals, communities, and societies in a position where they are able to ‘flourish’ (Fredrickson, 2001).

What does it mean to ‘flourish’? Put simply, it is a state of optimal wellbeing (Fredrickson, 2001). Fredrickson (2001) asked the question “ What role do positive emotions play in positive psychology? ”

Well, as it turns out, happiness can be thought of as experiencing predominantly positive emotions , or affective states, rather than negative ones (Tkach & Lyubomirsky, 2006). Thus, positive emotions are a sign of flourishing, or, in other words, happiness (Fredrickson, 2001). Happiness is central to the assumptions of positive psychology.

Seligman (2011) described the PERMA model of flourishing. This model defines psychological wellbeing in terms of 5 domains:

• P ositive emotions
• E ngagement
• R elationships
• A ccomplishment

For more detail on flourishing and how to achieve it, check out our article on Seligman’s PERMA+ model .

Let’s look at some interesting happiness research! In a large random-assignment experiment, Seligman and colleagues (2005) operationalized then evaluated 5 different happiness interventions.

They found that two of the interventions – writing about three good things the person had experienced each day and why they occurred, and using ‘signature strengths’ in a novel way – made people happier, and less depressed up to six months later! Compared to participants who engaged in the intervention, those in the placebo control group returned to the baseline levels of happiness and depression symptoms after just one week!

Lyubomirsky and colleagues (2006) conducted three studies examining the effects of writing, talking and thinking about significant life events – ‘triumphs and defeats’. While the majority of psychological research has focused on the way in which negative life circumstances are processed and managed, this unique study looked at the processing a positive life experience (Lyubomirsky, Sousa & Dickerhoof, 2006). This aspect of the study involved participants reflecting on their happiest day.

The researchers found that when participants thought while ‘replaying’ their happiest moment, it resulted in enhanced personal growth, improvements in general health and physical functioning, as well as lower pain levels, compared to the outcomes if the person was writing while analyzing their happiest moments.

The findings of the study suggest that people should be advised against over-analyzing or trying to make sense of a happy experience. Rather, Lyubomirsky and associates suggest that individuals should feel content in reliving and savoring happy experiences rather than trying to understand their meanings or causes.

Even though the experience of happiness is related to greater wellbeing and psychological health, in fact, some studies have shown that the desire to feel happy in an extreme form, or even simply placing a high value on happiness, can be detrimental in terms of wellbeing. In fact, in a research study by Ford and colleagues (2014), it was found that the emphasis placed upon attaining happiness can present a risk factor for symptoms and even a diagnosis of depression.

In a study of 181 participants, Sheldon et al. (2010) conducted a 6-month longitudinal experiment that sought to increase the happiness levels of those in the ‘treatment’ condition. The treatment group set goals to increase their feelings of autonomy, competence or relatedness in life while the comparison group set out to improve their life experiences.

In fact, it was found that those individuals in the treatment group had sustained increases in happiness (Sheldon et al., 2010). However, this gain lasted only while the individuals were actively engaged with the goals.

Interestingly, those who initially had a positive attitude towards change in happiness experienced greater benefits from the treatment! (Sheldon et al., 2010).

What, do you ask, is the Happiness Research Institute ? Well, it is an independent ‘think tank’ developed to investigate the reasons that some societies are happier than others.

The Happiness Research Institute aims to provide relevant parties with up-to-date information about the origins and effects of happiness, as well as to draw attention to subjective wellbeing as an important area for public policy debate. Furthermore, the Institute aims to improve the quality of life of all people.

The Happiness Research Institute provides knowledge, consultancy, and presentations. An example of the knowledge-building activities carried out by the Institute was that, in 2018, the Happiness Research Institute, in conjunction with the Nordic Council of Ministers compiled a study that was called ‘In the shadow of happiness’.

The study examined the reasons why some people living in Nordic countries are happy whilst others are suffering or struggling. The research also involved an analysis of why some groups within this cluster are struggling more often, and the impact this has on society.

In terms of consultancy, the Happiness Research Institute has also worked with groups including the Danish government, the Minister of State for Happiness in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the city of Goyang in South Korea. The aim of these partnerships is to improve quality of life and wellbeing of citizens.

Presentations by the Happiness Research Institute have taken place globally and featured at more than 1000 international events to share knowledge about what drives happiness, wellbeing, and quality of life.

The Happiness Research Institute analyses the somewhat separate components of the different cognitive, affective and eudaimonic dimensions of happiness, wellbeing and quality of life in order to explore these complex concepts. As previously explained, the cognitive dimension refers to the appraisal of overall life satisfaction, while the affective dimension focuses on the emotions that people experience on a daily basis.

Finally, the eudaimonic dimension looks at Aristotle’s perception of the ‘good life’ and is centered on purpose and meaning.

The reason that the Happiness Research Institute measures happiness is in order to shift policy priorities and therefore try and improve quality of life in societies, that will facilitate, in turn, the achievement of goals such as longevity and productivity. The Institute focuses not on the factors that cannot be changed (i.e. genetics, biology) but rather policies (that can be changed over time) and behavior (that can be changed immediately).

By examining the policies related to overall life satisfaction (i.e. the cognitive dimension of happiness) the Happiness Research Institute can explain 75% of the variance between more than 150 countries which were included in the 2018 World Happiness Report. The Institute also hopes to highlight the overlooked dimension of inequality in wellbeing, and increase the awareness and understanding of this inequality. The Happiness Research Institute is accessible via Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, and Meik Wiking is the CEO.

Professor Paul Dolan was coined ‘the happiness professor’ in The Telegraph in July, 2018. Professor Dolan is the Professor of Behavioural Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a leading expert in the fields of human behaviour and happiness.

Prof Dolan wrote the best-selling book , Happiness by Design and, more recently, Happy Ever After . His work is centred around two themes:

• The development of measures of happiness and subjective wellbeing that can then be used in policy, and by individuals who are looking to be happier.
• Utilising work from behavioural science that can be used to understand and change individual behaviour, and contribute more to this evidence base.

What would positive psychology be without its founding fathers , and other famous contributors?

Martin Seligman:

Dr. Seligman was born in 1942, and is credited as being the ‘father of Positive Psychology’ (The Pursuit of Happiness, 2018). Seligman suggests that there are three kinds of happiness:

• Pleasure and gratification
• Embodiment of strengths and virtues
• Meaning and purpose

One can remember that, as discussed earlier, happiness – or, subjective wellbeing – had three similar, distinct components like Seligman suggested. In his book , Authentic Happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment , Seligman (2002) says:

‘[Positive Psychology] takes you through the countryside of pleasure and gratification, up into the high country of strength and virtue, and finally to the peaks of lasting fulfillment: meaning and purpose’

Seligman also wrote a book titled Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life . He is an acclaimed author, and psychologist, also known for his work on ‘learned helplessness’ which has been popular within the discipline of psychology.

Michael W. Fordyce

Fordyce (December 14, 1944 – January 24, 2011) was a pioneer in the subject of happiness research (Friedman, 2013). In 1977, in the journal Social Indicators Research, the Fordyce Happiness Scale was published. In his multitude of research, Fordyce demonstrated that happiness can be measured statistically, and that also, by engaging in ‘volitional behavior’, happiness can also be deliberately increased (Friedman, 2013).

Diener was born in 1946, and is also known as ‘Dr. Happiness’ (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018). He is a leading researcher in the field of positive psychology. Diener is perhaps best known for coming up with the term “subjective wellbeing”, which is the component of happiness that can be empirically measured (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018). Diener believes that happiness has a strong genetic component, and thus is relatively stable. He also developed the Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Sonja Lyubomirsky

Lyubomirsky is a research psychologist who writes the Psychology Today blog titled ‘ The How of Happiness ’ (Sonja Lyubomirsky, 2019). She is a professor and vice chair at the University of California, Riverside. Lyubomirsky is the author of two books : The How of Happiness , and The Myths of Happiness .

Daniel Gilbert

Gilbert, a social psychologist, is also referred to as Professor Happiness at Harvard University (Dreifus, 2008). He is in charge of a laboratory that has been set up to investigate the nature of happiness. Gilbert’s main work centres around the fact that relationships with family and friends, and that the time spent investing in these social relationships contribute more to happiness than material possessions (Dreifus, 2008).

He suggests that more pleasure can be found in experiences, rather than goods or objects – perhaps, he argues, because experiences can be shared with others whereas possessions are generally not shared (Dreifus, 2008).

The psychology of happiness – WOBI

Research has suggested that there might be a causal relationship between positive affect and success … that not only does success bring happiness but, interestingly, that a happy person is more likely to achieve success (Psychology of Happiness, 2019). These three articles provide an account of success and happiness:

• Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness promote career success? Journal of Career Assessment, 16 , 101–116.
• Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131 , 803–855.
• Uusiautti, S. (2013). On the positive connection between success and happiness. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology , 1–12.

[Reviewer’s update:

Since this post was originally published, additional research has come out suggesting that the original theory at the heart of Uusiautti’s (2013) research doesn’t seem to hold true. As a replacement, you may want to check out the article by Okabe-Miyamoto et al. (2021), who recently found that increasing the variety of experiences to escape the hedonic treadmill may actually result in smaller boosts in wellbeing – not larger ones.]

In recent times, a wealth of research has been published into the topic of happiness, such as:

• Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Shigehiro, O. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Canadian Psychologist, 58 , 87 – 104
• Oerlemans, W. G. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2018). Motivating job characteristics and happiness at work: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103 , 1230 – 1241.
• Kaufman, M., Goetz, T., Lipnevich, A. A., & Pekrun, R. (2018). Do positive illusions of control foster happiness? Emotion, September 20, no pagination specified .
• Hoffman, J., Gander, F., & Ruch, W. (2018). Exploring differences in well-being across occupation type and skill. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4 , 290 – 303.
• Piff, P. K., & Moskowitz, J. P. (2018). Wealth, poverty, and happiness: Social class is differentially associated with positive emotions. Emotion, 18 , 902 – 905.
• McGuirk, L., Kuppens, P., Kingston, R., & Bastian, B. (2018). Does a culture of happiness increase rumination over failure? Emotion, 18 , 755 – 764.
• Warr, P. (2018). Self-employment, personal values, and varieties of happiness-unhappiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23 , 388 – 401.
• Liao, K Y-H, & Weng, C-Y. (2018). Gratefulness and subjective well-being: Social connectedness and presence of meaning as mediators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65 , 383 – 393.
• Blanke, E. S., Riediger, M., & Brose, A. (2018). Pathways to happiness are multidirectional: Association between state mindfulness and everyday affective experience. Emotion, 18 , 202 – 211.
• Fuochi, G., Veneziani, C. A., & Voci, A. (2018). Differences in the way to conceive happiness relate to different reactions to negative events. Journal of Individual Differences, 39 , 27 – 38.
• Weber, S., & Hagmayer, Y. (2018). Thinking about the Joneses? Decreasing rumination about social comparison increases well-being. European Journal of Health Psychology, 25 , 83 – 95.
• Felsman, P., Verduyn, P., Ayduk, O., & Kross, E. (2017). Being present: Focusing on the present predicts improvements in life satisfaction but not happiness. Emotion, 17 , 1047 – 1051.
• Tamir, M., Schwartz, S. H., Oishi, S., & Kim, M. Y. (2017). The secret to happiness: Feeling good or feeling right? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146 , 1448 – 1459.
• Phillips, J., De Freitas, J., Mott, C., Gruber, J., & Knobe, J. (2017). True happiness: The role of morality in the folk concept of happiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 165 – 181.
• Chopik, W. J., & O’Brien, E. (2017). Happy you, healthy me? Having a happy partner is independently associated with better health in oneself. Health Psychology, 36 , 21 – 30.
• Gross-Manos, D., & Ben-Arieh, A. (2017). How subjective well-being is associated with material deprivation and social exclusion on Israeli 12-year-olds. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87 , 274 – 290.

17 Exercises To Increase Happiness and Wellbeing

Add these 17 Happiness & Subjective Well-Being Exercises [PDF] to your toolkit and help others experience greater purpose, meaning, and positive emotions.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Follow the links below to some intriguing research in PDF form!

• How Do Simple Positive Activities Increase Well-Being? – Sonja Lyubomirsky, Kristin Layous (Access here )
• The How, Why, What, When and Who of Happiness: Mechanisms Underlying the Success of Positive Activity Interventions – Kristin Layous & Sonja Lyubomirsky (Access here )
• Variety is the Spice of Happiness: The Hedonic Adaptation Prevention (HAP) Model – Kennon M. Sheldon, Julia Boehm, Sonja Lyubomirsky (Access here )
• Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change – Lyubomirsky, S, Sheldon, K M, Schkade, D (Access here )
• A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation – Lyubomirsky, S, Lepper, HS (Access here )
• Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? – Richard A. Easterlin (Access here )
• Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative? – Philip Brickman, Dan Coates, Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (Access here )

This article provides a snapshot of a huge topic which is, in fact, the overarching focus of positive psychology: happiness. It has been shown that subjective wellbeing is the closest thing to a scientific equivalent to happiness, which can be measured. The main feature of this article is that it has provided a range of resources which you can refer to in the future, including 16 key papers published in the last two years.

So, happiness… an elusive phenomenon, which we all seem to strive for. Hopefully this article has provided an overview of what is, undoubtedly, a very important issue. We all strive to be happier.

What is your understanding of happiness? What do you think makes happy people happy? Do you think that happiness can be measured, or, like some argue, do you think it is purely subjective?

What do you think about the recent articles shared? Please feel free to discuss this interesting topic further! I hope you have claimed some important take-home messages on happiness. Thanks for reading!

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Happiness Exercises for free .

• Argyle, M. (2001). The Psychology of Happiness . Routledge.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 , 227 – 268.
• Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative & quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100 , 185 – 207.
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95 , 542 – 575.
• Dreifus, C. (2008). The smiling professor. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/science/22conv.html
• Ford, B. Q., Shallcross, A. J., Mauss, I. B., Floerke, V. A., & Gruber, J. (2014). Desperately seeking happiness: Valuing happiness is associated with symptoms and diagnosis of depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33 , 890 – 905.
• Fordyce, M. W. (1977). Development of a program to increase personal happiness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24 , 511 – 521.
• Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56 , 218 – 226
• Freud, S., & Riviere, J. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents . New York: J Cape & H Smith.
• Friedman, H. L. (2013). The legacy of a pioneering happiness researcher: Michael W. Fordyce (Dec 14, 1944 – Jan 24, 2011). Journal of Happiness Studies, 14 , 363 – 366
• Happiness (2019). In Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/happiness
• Haybron, D. M. (2003). What do we want from a theory of happiness? Metaphilosophy, 34 , 305 – 329
• Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz (Eds). USA: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 , 117 – 125.
• Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2010). The Neuroscience of Happiness and Pleasure. Social Research (New York) , 77, 659 – 678.
• Lyubomirsky, S. (2019). Sonja Lyubomirsky. Retrieved from http://www.sonjalyubomirsky.com/
• Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective well-being: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 , 137 – 155.
• Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs and benefits of writing, talking, and thinking about life’s triumphs and defeats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90, 692 – 708.
• Nelson, S. K., Kurtzy, J. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (in press). What psychological science knows about happiness . In S. J. Lynn, W. O’Donohue & S. Lilienfeld (Eds.) Better, stronger, wiser: Psychological science and well-being. New York: Sage
• Norrish, J. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Is the study of happiness a worthy scientific pursuit? Social Indicators Research, 87 , 393 – 407.
• Okabe-Miyamoto, K., Margolis, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2021). Is variety the spice of happiness? More variety is associated with lower efficacy of positive activity interventions in a sample of over 200,000 happiness seekers.  The Journal of Positive Psychology.
• Psychology of Happiness (2019). Psychologist World. Retrieved from https://www.psychologistworld.com/emotion/psychology-of-happiness-positive-affect
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 141 – 166.
• Samuel, L. R. (2019). The Psychology of Happiness (Circa 1929). Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/psychology-yesterday/201901/the-psychology-happiness-circa-1929
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the new Positive Psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment . New York, NY: Free Press.
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
• Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55 , 5 – 14.
• Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60 , 410 – 421
• Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., Ferguson, Y., Gunz, A., Houser-Marko, L., Nichols, C. P., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2010). Persistent pursuit of need-satisfying goals leads to increased happiness: A 6-month experimental longitudinal study. Motivation and Emotion, 34 , 39 – 48.
• The Pursuit of Happiness (2019). Retrieved from https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org
• Tkach, C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How do people pursue happiness? Relating personality, happiness-increasing strategies and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7 , 183 – 225.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

I am impressed by the organization of ideas and materials on happiness. I would be interested to get more materials on happiness if you can supply me, with or refer me to some articles or books.

Hi Mohammad,

Thank you for your kind words and interest in learning more about happiness. I’m glad to hear that you found our resources helpful.

In addition to the article you mentioned, we have a wealth of resources on the psychology of happiness. Here are some additional articles that you may find useful:

– “ The Science of Gratitude: How It Improves Your Health and Happiness “: This article explores the benefits of practicing gratitude, including improved relationships, better physical health, and increased happiness. It also includes practical tips for cultivating gratitude in your daily life. – “ The Power of Positive Self-Talk: How It Can Improve Your Mental Health “: This article explores the benefits of positive self-talk, including increased self-esteem and reduced anxiety. It also provides practical tips for cultivating positive self-talk.

And here are some additional book recommendations on happiness: – “ The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want ” by Sonja Lyubomirsky: This book is based on years of scientific research on the psychology of happiness and provides evidence-based strategies for increasing happiness and life satisfaction. – “ Stumbling on Happiness ” by Daniel Gilbert: This book explores the science of happiness and why humans often struggle to predict what will make them happy. Gilbert provides insight into the psychological processes that influence our happiness and offers practical tips for living a more fulfilling life.

Hope this helps! Kind regards, Julia | Community Manager

Were you happy while typing this article? How did you feel throughout the entire writing process?

in precise… PHENOMENAL SNAPSHOT.

Thank you for the snapshot on the concepts and theories of happiness . It is really helpful for my thesis writing.

Nice article, but incomplete . You should have discusses ed neurobiochemistry. How dopamine , endorphins serotonin & oxytocin are invested by nature in happiness circuitry. How have we evolved to incorporate release of these chemicals through daily activities

Thank you for this article. I’m sure that it’ll help me to defining happiness in my research.

This article is a really informative overview of Happiness, the subject that I believe is the most important driver of life advancement. Focusing on happiness and its pursuit as a positive discipline instead of focusing on ailments and pathologies that need to be “treated” or “cured” to find some happiness is the best approach. I recently published my book, “America, The Happy” addressing the pursuit happiness and its role in American life. I would have liked to have found this piece earlier, but I’ll reference it in my next one. Very good work.

Thank you so much for this overview it’s contributing greatly to my research into happiness.

A Happiness ‘Recipe’ In its rudiments a neuro-anatomy of happiness maps positive affective states of attentive arousal and pleasure to neurological processes, respectively the activity of dopamine and opioid systems. These systems can be hijacked by addictive drugs, but I submit that they can also be conjointly activated by simple cognitive protocols detailed below. This is achieved through opioid/dopamine interactions induced from concurrent contingencies that induce relaxation and attentive arousal. This simple, innocuous, and easily falsifiable procedure is in short a ‘recipe’ for happiness that conforms with commonplace notions that happiness is coextensive with a committed and meaningful life. My work is largely based on the latest iteration of incentive or discrepancy-based models of motivation representative of the work of Dr. Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan. Berridge is a renowned bio-behaviorist and neuroscientist who has contributed significantly to the neuroscience of happiness (see link below) and was kind to vet and endorse the little book I have linked below. My explanation and argument are tiered into three parts, for a lay audience (pp.7-52), an expanded academic version (pp.53-86), and a formal journal article published on the topic in the International Journal of Stress Management. The procedure is a variant of mindfulness practice but entails a new definition of mindfulness based on affective neuroscience. Still, all is moot if the procedure is ineffective. A brief summary of my argument In discrepancy models of motivation (or bio-behaviorism), affect is schedule dependent. VR (variable-ratio) schedules of reinforcement or reward (gaming, gambling, creative behavior) are characterized by moment to moment positive act-outcome discrepancy or uncertainty between what is expected and what actually happens, which parallels the release of the neuro-modulator dopamine that is felt a state of attentive arousal, but not pleasure. However, heightened pleasurable affect as well as heightened attentive arousal is also reported while performing under VR schedules, but only when the musculature is in a state of inactivity or relaxation. Relaxation induces the activity of mid-brain opioid systems and is felt as pleasure. Because dopamine and opioid systems can co-activate each other, concurrent contingencies which induce relaxation (mindfulness protocols) and attentive arousal (purposive or meaningful behavior) will result in a significant spike in affective tone as both dopaminergic and opioid activity will be much higher due to their synergistic effects. The procedure to do this, outlined on pp. 47-52, has several important characteristics. Behavior Analytic- no appeal to events outside of objective behavior. Simple – explained in five minutes, and refutable as quickly. Cognitive Behavioral – coheres to CBT principles, and is structured, brief, and rational. Also, as a layman (though academically trained in behavioral psychology, I am an executive for a tech company in New Orleans), I am most curious to see if this procedure is effective. Formal test is not at first necessary, but informal exposure is since the procedure is simple in aspect but possibly very useful in practice. (But again, I may be wrong!) https://www.scribd.com/doc/284056765/The-Book-of-Rest-The-Odd-Psychology-of-Doing-Nothing https://www.scribd.com/doc/121345732/Relaxation-and-Muscular-Tension-A-bio-behavioristic-explanation Berridge, Kringelbach article on the neuro-anatomy of happiness https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008353/ And Holmes’ Article on Meditation and Rest from ‘The American Psychologist’ https://www.scribd.com/document/291558160/Holmes-Meditation-and-Rest-The-American-Psychologist

I am amazed at no mention of BROADEN AND BUILT THEORY by Barb Frederickson, nor of DR PAUL WONG’S POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 2. Thank you for your amazing work.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Embracing JOMO: Finding Joy in Missing Out

We’ve probably all heard of FOMO, or ‘the fear of missing out’. FOMO is the currency of social media platforms, eager to encourage us to [...]

The True Meaning of Hedonism: A Philosophical Perspective

“If it feels good, do it, you only live once”. Hedonists are always up for a good time and believe the pursuit of pleasure and [...]

Happiness Economics: Can Money Buy Happiness?

Do you ever daydream about winning the lottery? After all, it only costs a small amount, a slight risk, with the possibility of a substantial [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (49)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (29)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (18)
• Positive Parenting (15)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (43)
• Resilience & Coping (37)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (63)

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Happiness Exercises Pack [PDF]

Happiness According to Our Desires of Happiness

I join President Kauwe, your family members, and your friends in congratulating you most warmly on this wonderful day! Today marks such an important step in your life. You come from many different countries and backgrounds. You have faced many challenges—some that you never anticipated, like the COVID-19 pandemic. But those challenges could not stop you from graduating with a degree from Brigham Young University–Hawaii. I am sure you have been looking forward to this day for many years, and you have the opportunity of a wonderful future in front of you.

Some of you will pursue further education. Others will begin a career. But all of you will have many choices to make, and your future happiness will depend, to a large degree, on those choices.

Happiness is an interesting word. Even though we are all familiar with it, if we were each asked to give a definition, I am not sure we would all come up with the same one. Some equate happiness with pleasure or comfort. Others might describe it as a feeling that motivates us to climb higher, work harder, and improve ourselves. Happiness could also be considered a state of well-being that encompasses living a good life, one with a sense of meaning and deep contentment.

The scriptures teach that happiness comes from living the gospel. King Benjamin spoke of the “happy state of those that keep the commandments of God” (Mosiah 2:41). And Alma warned, “Wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10).

Sometimes we jump to the incorrect conclusion that if one is not keeping all the commandments, that person cannot be happy in any sense of the word. I do not think that is completely true, but I do believe that there are many different levels of happiness.

I have learned that God gives us commandments to bring us happiness—the kind of happiness only He can offer.

Jesus Christ taught that there are two great commandments. They are:

• “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment” (Matthew 22:37–38).
• “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39).

May I share some additional scriptures that might help us better understand these two great commandments. The Doctrine and Covenants records a beautiful vision that the Prophet Joseph Smith received of the three kingdoms of glory. Please note that while they are all different, each one is referred to as a kingdom of glory. This alone helps us understand Heavenly Father’s infinite love for us—that He would create a kingdom of glory for virtually all His children who chose to accept His plan in pre mortality.

The lowest kingdom, called the Telestial kingdom, will be inhabited by those who in this life were “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.” They are those who “received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:103, 101).

It appears to me that people in this group love themselves more than they love God or their neighbor. They place first their own desires, which include greed, power, lust, and whatever it takes to satisfy their personal wants. They do not want to follow the commandments of God, and they do not see their fellow men as their equals.

Is there a happiness for these people? I would say that it depends upon one’s definition, but the answer is probably yes—a type of happiness. However, it may be the kind that comes from pursuing happiness, not from actually achieving it. To use Samuel’s words, they “sought all the days of [their] lives for that which [they] could not obtain”—“happiness in doing iniquity” (Helaman 13:38). Before these inherit the telestial glory, they must be purified of those desires.

Now let us look at the description of those who will inherit the terrestrial kingdom. “These are … honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory but not of his fulness. … These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:75–76, 79).

These sound like good people. The word “honorable” suggests that they have worked in wonderful causes, and their hearts were right in helping others. I would say they probably do love God and love their neighbor, and they find happiness in that. So, what were they missing? Why did they inherit terrestrial glory instead of celestial glory?

I think at least part of the answer is this: They settled. They received some of God’s glory, “but not of his fulness.” The Father had so much more to offer them—unimaginable blessings—but for whatever reason, they contented themselves with only a portion. They had a testimony of Jesus; they just were not valiant about it. They chose good over evil, but they also chose good over great. As a reward, they receive happiness. But they could have had more.

Let us return to the scriptures and see those who inherit the Celestial kingdom. These “are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized …, being buried in the water in his name. … These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.” The scriptures go on to say that they “dwell in [God’s] presence,” where “they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace. And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:51, 69, 94–95).

These are individuals who learned to love God and love their neighbors. They likely sought to eliminate evils in the world, like prejudice, poverty, and suffering—after all, they are “just (or righteous) men and women.” But because of their humble reliance on the Savior and His atoning power, they eventually became better than just. He made them perfect. They had trials and weaknesses, but because they turned to God and “received of his fulness and his grace,” they find purpose and meaning, even in difficult experiences. They fully embrace Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and as a result, they receive a degree of happiness not available in any other way.

We find happiness by degrees, and the degree to which we seek it will ultimately determine our destiny and the kingdom of glory we inherit. As Alma taught his son Corianton: “One [is] raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil” (Alma 41:5). And because we have agency, those desires are expressed in the choices we make.

May I share three choices you can make that will lead to celestial happiness, eternal happiness, God’s happiness.

1. Choose to be Happy

First, choose to be happy. Of course, there are cases of clinical depression, and we are thankful for professional help in such cases. But when it comes to the ups and downs of life, we all experience, there is great power in accepting the premise that we can choose to be happy.

To the paralytic man lying helpless on a bed, Jesus proclaimed, “Be of good cheer” (Matthew 9:2). To the frightened Apostles battling a tempestuous sea, Jesus appeared on the water, declaring, “Be of good cheer” (Matthew 14:27). As Joseph Smith met with 10 elders about to be sent out on missions fraught with trouble and danger, the Lord commanded, “Be of good cheer” (Doctrine and Covenants 61:36). In each instance, the people had every reason to be anxious, fearful, and hopeless, yet the Lord directed them to choose to be cheerful.

An old Native American story helps illustrate how we can do this. One evening a grandfather said to his grandson, “There is a battle going on inside me—a fierce battle. It is also going on inside you and inside all people. It’s a battle between two wolves.”

The boy was puzzled by the thought of two wolves fighting inside him, but he kept listening.

“One wolf is unhappiness,” the grandfather continued. “He is fear, worry, anger, jealousy, sorrow, self-pity, and resentment. The other wolf is happiness. He is joy, love, hope, serenity, kindness, truth, and compassion.”

With some anxiety, the boy asked, “Which wolf will win?”

The grandfather replied, “The one you feed.”

We can choose to be happy by feeding happiness and starving unhappiness. For example, at any moment you can focus on gratitude, counting your blessings. Make a mental list of the things in your life you are thankful for—your health, the use of your legs, your friends, the fact that your eyes work. Keep going until the impulse to complain has left you.

When you are feeling sad or down, choose to stop giving energy to those feelings through dwelling on them. If you are holding a grudge, ask yourself, “What is more important for me right now? To feel justified or to be happy?” Remember, withholding your love accomplishes nothing except making two people unhappy.

Happiness comes to those who, like Nephi’s people, live “after the manner of happiness” (2 Nephi 5:27). We must learn to appreciate the good around us. Look for blessings in your life every day. Look for the good in the world and build upon it. Choose to be happy.

2. Choose to see Your Trials and Difficulties as Blessings

The second choice you can make is to recognize trials and difficulties as potential blessings. As the early Latter-day Saints were first arriving in Jackson County, Missouri, the Lord gave them a special warning. The Saints did not know this yet, but the Lord knew that Missouri would be a place of heart-rending trials for them. Here is what the scripture says:

“He that is faithful in tribulation, the reward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven. Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation. For after much tribulation come the blessings” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:2–4).

There is a story of a beautiful fictional city, where there was a museum laid with rough-hewn marble tiles. The treasure of the museum’s collection was a huge marble statue. Every day, people from all over the world visited the museum and admired the magnificently crafted statue.

One night, one of the marble tiles complained to the marble statue: “Hey, statue! I’m getting tired of seeing people come all the way here from across the world to admire you while they ignore and step on me!”

The statue answered, “My dear brother, don’t you remember we are actually from the same quarry?”

“Yes! I do,” cried the tile. “That’s my point! We were born in the same place. We are made of the same material. And yet the world treats us so differently. This is so unfair!”

The statute paused for a moment and then said, “Yes, you are right, my brother. But think back to the day when the sculptor tried to work on you with his tools.”

“Oh, I remember that, all right,” said the tile. “I despise that sculptor. How could he use those horrible tools on me? I refused!”

Then the statue continued, “Well, since you resisted his tools, he couldn’t work on you. You limited what he could make out of you. When he started working on me, I knew at once that I would be something different and unique after his efforts. I bore all the painful chiseling and grinding and polishing and allowed him to craft me as he wanted!”

With some regret, the tile said, “But those tools were so painful.”

“My brother,” the statue replied, “there is a price for everything in life. You made your choice, and you cannot blame anybody who steps on you now.”

Brothers and sisters, you will each have opportunities to receive some chiseling and grinding, and polishing. Some of you are going to face health challenges. Some will be lonely as you move to faraway places. “All these things,” and many more, “shall give [you] experience, and shall be for [your] good” (Doctrine and Covenants 122:7). But that will not happen against your will; therefore, choose to look for opportunities to grow from your experiences. Be careful not to fall into the habit of saying, “It’s not fair!” or “Why me?” Instead, ask, “What can I learn from this?” Counsel with your spouse, a friend, or your bishop. Through it all, spend time on your knees, turning to God that He may make out of you the person He knows you can become.

3. Choose to Act and not be Acted Upon

Third, choose to act and not be acted upon. There are many influences in the world that seek to act upon you. Influential voices call out to you from all sides.

Often the purpose of such messages is to manipulate you. Never forget that you are a son or daughter of God. You were not created to be acted upon. You were created to act for yourself. You were created to have joy, and you were given agency to make choices. Joy comes when we act and are not acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:25–26).

Certainly, there are many things about life that we cannot control. We may not be able to direct the wind, but we can certainly adjust our sails. And in all circumstances, we can choose to obey the two great commandments. If we will always keep the perspective first of loving God and then loving our neighbor as ourselves, we will find celestial happiness. Our Heavenly Father wants us to become joint-heirs with Christ to receive all that the Father has. This is the ultimate purpose of His great plan of happiness. It is our potential destiny as His children. But it does not just happen to us. We must choose it, and we must commit to that choice with all our heart, mind, and strength, even in the face of opposition.

As you leave this university, take with you what you have learned about your choices. You have a bright future. You have so many opportunities ahead—and so many choices ahead too! The choices you make will determine your happiness. May the Lord bless you to always seek to do His will.

I testify that Jesus is the Christ. I know that we have a loving Father who desires to bless us continually with the opportunities that will mold us to become the person He knows we can be. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

11 Introduction to Psychological Definitions of Happiness

Joar Vittersø, University of Tromsø, Norway.

• Published: 01 August 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Happiness research is flourishing. But more articles and more books do not necessarily mean better research and enhanced understanding. Without proper theoretical conceptualizations of the mechanisms that generate a good life, the science of happiness will not move forward. Section II of The Oxford Handbook of Happiness therefore provides an important step towards further clarification of the main ideas, empirical results, and current thinking in happiness research. Written by leading scholars in the field, the chapters sharpen the essential contours in the science of well-being, they point out some bad ideas and dead ends, and offer suggestions as how the thinking in happiness may look like in the years to come.

Three decades ago Ernst Mayr, a highly esteemed biologist, published an outstanding review on the growth of scientific thinking in general, and of biological thinking in particular (Mayr, 1982 ). His analysis revealed that science seems to make progress, not so much by individual discoveries, experimental procedures, or the proposal of new theories, but rather by the gradual but decisive development of new concepts and the abandonment of those that had previously been dominant. “Those are not far wrong who insist that the progress of science consists principally in the progress of scientific concepts,” Mayr argued ( 1982 , p. 24). For example, nothing seemed to have strengthened the theory of natural selection as much as the continuing refutation of old concepts and competing theories.

Related to Mayr's criteria for progress, the scientific thinking on happiness is dominated more by developing new concepts than by abandoning old ones and some trends are clearer than others. For instance, before modern psychology, the concept of happiness was dominated by the thinking of two periods (Fellows, 1966 ). The first period was that of the ancient Greek philosophers, and the second took off with the utilitarianism of the nineteenth century.

In the Greek period, four conceptualizations of the good life competed for attention (McMahon, 2008 ). From the pure hedonism of Aristippus we got the idea that happiness is the sum of momentary pleasures (J. Watson, 1895 ), a position that was partly reborn with Bentham's utilitarianism (Bentham, 1789/1948) and more recently with Kahneman's theory of objective happiness (Kahneman, 1999 ; Kahneman, Wakker, & Sarin, 1997 ). A softer hedonistic position was defended by Epicurus who argued that life should not be lived to maximize momentary pleasures, but to maximize pleasures with life as a whole. Today we recognize Epicurus’ ideas in the concept of life satisfaction (Diener, 2006 ) and in Kahneman's revised theory of hedonic happiness (e.g., Kahneman, Schkade, Fischler, Krueger, & Krilla, 2010 ). A third position from the high days of Greek philosophy was Stoicism, coming from Zeno and his argument that happiness is secured by detachment from emotional life. Finally, the fourth approach to happiness sprang from Aristotle and the claim that the good life follows from the exercise of virtuous activities. Elements of Stoicism and Aristotelian happiness have been reborn in what currently is referred to as eudaimonic well-being. In it one will find both tendencies to reduce the role of feelings in well-being (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2001 ; Ryff, 1989 ), and tendencies to reintroduce the Aristotelian idea of activity-based “higher pleasures” and the development of one's potential as the core constructs in a theory of happiness (e.g., Huta & Ryan, 2010 ; Waterman, 2008 ).

To the Greek philosophers, true happiness could not be achieved outside the circle of privileged, wealthy men. With the Enlightenment, by contrast, an egalitarian notion of the concept emerged for the first time. All people had a right to happiness. So, even if Adam Smith argued that greed is good, he also believed that it was a deception that the rich owned more means to happiness than the poor (Kenny & Kenny, 2006 ). And Bentham's version of hedonism is well known for the support it gave to “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.” Another leading utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, observed a conflict between the reductionism of Bentham and the moralism of Aristotle. Thus Mill attempted to follow Aristotle in separating higher pleasures from lower pleasures, and he thought of happiness as depending on doing the right activities and on the realization of potentials (Nussbaum, 2007 ). But he also picked up the idea of a subjective and one-dimensional concept of happiness from Bentham, which forced Mill to believe that pleasures of different kinds could be summoned into a single dimension by a judgmental process, quite similar to the idea of life satisfaction in current literature. But whereas Bentham believed in pleasure as a one-dimensional feeling state, Mill believed in pleasure as a one-dimensional evaluation, or, in philosophical jargon, a one-dimensional rank of attitude (Sumner, 1996 ).

This brief history points out how modern conceptions of happiness stand on the shoulders of philosophical thinking. But as a scientific discipline, happiness research was not born until the end of the 1950s. Scattered attempts of empirical investigations had taken place earlier (e.g., Beckham, 1929 ; Hartmann, 1934 ; Ilsager, 1948 ; Ruckmick, 1925 ; Sailor, 1931 ; G. Watson, 1930 ), but it seems fair to say that a milestone was reached when Gurin and his colleagues set out to ask a representative sample of the population of the USA explicitly about their overall happiness in life (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960 ). Shortly after, Cantril surveyed a broader sample of nations. His concepts were those of human concerns and life satisfaction, thus introducing the evaluative dimension to happiness studies (Cantril, 1965 ). The combination of good feelings and favorable evaluations gave birth to the concept of subjective well-being as we know it today, and the duality of experiences and evaluations has dominated modern happiness research, thanks to researchers such as Andrews and Withey ( 1976 ), Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers ( 1976 ), Michalos (1980), Veenhoven ( 1984 ), and Diener ( 1984 ).

The current section testifies to this development, and takes it further. The following chapters explore the many understandings of happiness that exist today and illustrate that without conceptual clarifications, the study of happiness hardly make sense.

This section opens with a chapter by Ruut Veenhoven, a true old-timer in happiness research. Veenhoven is highly aware of the many meanings of happiness, and has limited the scope of his review to the concept as referring to quality of life as a whole. To help classify the relevant themes of this perspective, Veenhoven suggests that the qualities of a life can be summarized in a fourfold matrix. The first domain in this table accounts for the distinction between life chances and life results, or outcomes. In the second dimension a distinction is made between the external and internal qualities of life. By this route, Veenhoven is able to pin down many concepts relevant for a proper understanding of the good life. For example, the livability of the environment (the standard of living) is an external life chance, whereas the utility of life (the significance of life) is an external life result. Life-ability (how well we are equipped to cope with the problems of life) is an inner life chance, and appreciation of life (self-reported life satisfaction) is an inner life result. Veenhoven shows how his scheme has analogies to taxonomies in biology, and clarifies how central concepts in quality of life literature fit into the quadrants. The author also provides an opinion as to how the central meaning from of the other chapters in this section fit into the fourfold matrix of life qualities.

Two conceptual presentations of hedonic or subjective well-being (SWB) follow Veenhoven's contribution. In Chapter 13 , Felicity Miao, Minkyung Koo, and Shigehiro Oishi provide an updated review of the SWB perspective. The authors declare SWB to be the sum of two affective and two cognitive components, and encourage well-being researchers to measure all four components of the concept: positive emotions, negative emotions, life satisfaction, and domain satisfaction. After a clear synopsis of the history of happiness research and after debating the issues of measurement, Miao and coauthors highlight important findings from SWB research. They point to the modest impact from demographic variability and to the puzzling relation between material wealth and well-being and the importance of positive social relationships. Newer insights on adaptation and cultural variation are then presented, as are the relatively recent concerns for the effects of happiness and intervention strategies for the enhancement of higher well-being. When it comes to future research needs, the authors are clear in their advice: Better theoretical models that make sense of the dynamic influences of subjective well-being brought forth by sophisticated research techniques are needed.

Robert A. Cummins (Chapter 14 ) provides another articulation of happiness research. Acknowledging how the lack of a proper understanding of the concept is a barrier for progress in the field, Cummins clarifies his own position before the chapter proceeds to the issue of how happiness can be measured. Like most researchers, Cummins regards subjective well-being to involve both affective and cognitive processes. However, Cummins also adds a cybernetic element to his SWB construct, entitled homeostatically protected mood, which he describes as a positive sense of well-being. This stable mood component is the driving force of both the affective and the cognitive elements of SWB. By analogy to the homeostatic regulation of body temperature, he suggests that individuals are genetically determined to maintain a level of well-being in the area between 60 and 90 on a scale running from 0 to 100. In other words, for an individual with a SWB set-point of 70, some regulatory mechanisms will be activated in order to reduce the level of well-being for that individual if the level temporarily increases to, say, 75. If the SWB level is reduced to 65, other kinds of mechanisms will kick in to push SWB back to its normal level. Based on this architecture, and after briefly having discussed qualitative methods, Cummins presents his thinking on how happiness should be measured. Issues such as item weighting, proxy data, and data cleaning are nicely summarized, as is the special case of how happiness may be measured in low-functioning populations. The chapter concludes with a presentation of scales that Cummins suggests not be used, and a handful of scales recommended for use in happiness research.

In Chapter 15 , Veronika Huta asks how humans can increase their fulfillment in life. This is a pointed question that encircles the homeland of eudaimonic inquiries. Conceptually, the academic playground of eudaimonia has fussy boarders, but is roughly associated with developing the best in oneself in accordance with one's true self and deeper principles. Huta reviews ancient and current perspectives on the relation between fulfillment and happiness, and shows how eudaimonic well-being is a multifaceted concept by presenting a handful of eudaimonic oriented theories. For example, self-determination theory is related to eudaimonia in its view of autonomy, which includes the idea of being true to oneself. In flow theory, self-fulfillment occurs for individuals who skillfully engage in challenging activities that stretch their abilities. The notion of psychological well-being is eudaimonic in proposing that well-being is not about good feelings, but rather about objectively realizing one's potentials. Personal expressiveness is another member of the eudaimonic family, one that stresses the subjective experiences that follow from the development of potentials. When developing the best in oneself one also feels fully alive, is the main argument of personal expressiveness theory. In the authentic happiness approach, eudaimonia is seen as activities in the service of something grander than the actor's own self. The functional model of well-being emphasizes how fulfillment in life depends on a variety of emotions with different functions: engagement and interest prepare us to make plans and assist when acting on important life goals, pleasure and satisfaction reward us when the goals are accomplished or are about to be accomplished. In Huta's own work, the motives for different categories of activities are taken as the eudaimonic markers. Some goals seek to develop the best in oneself, and these have a eudaimonic nature, others aim for pleasure and comfort and these goals are hedonic.

Christopher Niemiec and Richard Ryan provide a broad analysis of the fully functioning person (Chapter 16 ). A good life depends on psychological functioning and optimal experiences, because these elements are associated with autonomous self-regulation, pursuit and attainment of intrinsic values, and a mindful awareness of present experience. The authors embrace the eudaimonic perspective on well-being, but do not dismiss important elements of subjective well-being, such as the role played by satisfaction when it comes to rewarding the fulfillment of important needs. The chapter provides a clear description of self-determination theory and how recent years have witnessed an impressive accumulation of evidence suggesting its importance for well-being. The continuous, rather than dichotomous, difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is presented, with a description of how it relates to the pursuit and attainment of important life goals. The authors are also concerned with mindfulness and how a receptive attention to present experience seems important to a life well lived. The authors conclude that happiness seems to accompany a harmony between thoughts, feelings, and actions, which in turn seem to benefit from well-functioning autonomy, competence, and social relatedness.

In the last chapter of the section, Vittersø reviews emotional, evaluative, and functional approaches to the study of human well-being. The author worries about the valuable information that gets lost when the study of happiness is reduced to simply asking people if they are happy or satisfied with their lives overall. A life is valuable in many different ways—not all of them are reflected as pleasure or in a statement of good versus bad. Happiness research may have been led astray in its eagerness to reduce the fullness of human emotions into a polarization of positive versus negative affects. For example, what we appreciate by way of experiencing novelty, engagement, and commitment to important life goals tends to slip away when the good life is operationalized as self-reported happiness or life satisfaction. As an alternative to such a one-dimensional approach, Chapter 17 proposes that theories of well-being should be attached to detailed observations of the diversity and dynamics between subjective experiences, evaluations, and life goals. Feelings and evaluations make little sense if they are isolated from the goals and plans held by those who experience the feelings and make the evaluations. To account for these themes, a functional well-being model is presented in order to explain, not only pleasant feelings and evaluations, but also a unifying representation of goals and plans. The concept of optimal functioning is offered to account for the process of creating plans and acting upon them to reach idiosyncratic goals and to fulfill basic needs in a manner that appears as meaningful. In other words, the functional well-being approach presents a taxonomy of happiness that incorporates good feelings and positive evaluations, but that in addition includes the idea of good functioning.

Pasteur famously stated that only the prepared mind makes discoveries. It is the editors’ hope that readers of the present chapters will be better prepared to making new discoveries that will turn out to be important for future happiness research.

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. ( 1976 ). Social indicators of well-being . New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Beckham, A. S. ( 1929 ). Is the negro happy?   Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 24, 186–190. 10.1037/h0072938

Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of moral and legislation . New York, NY: Hafner. (Original work published 1789). (Available from http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML1.html ).

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. ( 1976 ). The quality of American life . New York, NY: Sage.

Cantril, H. ( 1965 ). The pattern of human concerns . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Diener, E. ( 1984 ). Subjective well-being.   Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

Diener, E. ( 2006 ). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 397–404. 10.1007/s10902-006-9000-y

Fellows, E. W. ( 1966 ). Happiness: A survey of research. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6, 17–30. 10.1177/002216786600600103

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. ( 1960 ). Americans view their mental health . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hartmann, G. W. ( 1934 ). Personality traits associated with variations in happiness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29, 202–212. 10.1037/h0073108

Huta, V., & Ryan, R. ( 2010 ). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762. 10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

Ilsager, H. ( 1948 ). Factors contributing to happiness among Danish college students.   The Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 217–246.

Kahneman, D. ( 1999 ). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kahneman, D., Schkade, D. A., Fischler, C., Krueger, A. B., & Krilla, A. ( 2010 ). The structure of well-being in two cities: Life satisfaction and experienced happiness in Columbus, Ohio; and Rennes, France. In E. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 16–33). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. ( 1997 ). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility.   Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 , 375–405. 10.1162/003355397555235

Kenny, A., & Kenny, C. ( 2006 ). Life, liberty, and the pursuit of utility. Happiness in philosophical and economic thought . Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.

Mayr, E. ( 1982 ). The growth of biological thought. Diversity, evolution, and inheritance . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McMahon, D. M. ( 2008 ). The pursuit of happiness in history. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 80–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Michalos, A. C. ( 1980 ). Satisfaction and happiness.   Social Indicators Research, 8, 385–422. 10.1007/BF00461152

Nussbaum, M. C. ( 2007 ). Mill between Aristotle and Bentham. In L. Bruni & P. L. Porta (Eds.), Economics and happiness. Framing the analysis (pp. 170–183). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ruckmick, C. A. ( 1925 ). The psychology of pleasantness.   Psychological Review, 32, 362–383. 10.1037/h0073297

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. D. ( 2001 ). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Ryff, C. D. ( 1989 ). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Sailor, R. C. ( 1931 ). Happiness self-estimates of young men . New York, NY: Columbia University.

Sumner, L. W. ( 1996 ). Welfare, happiness, and ethics . Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Veenhoven, R. ( 1984 ). Conditions of happiness . Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978-94-009-6432-7

Waterman, A. S. ( 2008 ). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist's perspective. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 234–252. 10.1080/17439760802303002

Watson, G. ( 1930 ). Happiness among adult students of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 79–109. 10.1037/h0070539

Watson, J. ( 1895 ). Hedonistic theories. From Aristippus to Spencer . London, UK: Macmillan.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of happiness noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• happy adjective (≠ unhappy)
• happily adverb (≠ unhappily)
• happiness noun (≠ unhappiness)
• to find true happiness
• Fame did not bring her happiness.
• the pursuit of happiness
• Her eyes shone with happiness.
• Their grandchildren are a constant source of happiness.

Join our community to access the latest language learning and assessment tips from Oxford University Press!

• The meeting expressed happiness about the progress made.
• He derived great satisfaction from knowing that his son was happy.
• Money can’t buy you happiness.
• The sight of her son graduating filled her with pride.
• They found contentment in living a simple life.
• her search for personal fulfilment
• satisfaction/​happiness/​pride/​contentment/​fulfilment in something
• real satisfaction/​happiness/​pride/​contentment/​fulfilment
• true satisfaction/​happiness/​contentment/​fulfilment
• great satisfaction/​happiness/​pride
• quiet satisfaction/​pride/​contentment
• to feel satisfaction/​happiness/​pride/​contentment
• to bring somebody satisfaction/​happiness/​pride/​contentment/​fulfilment
• to find satisfaction/​happiness/​contentment/​fulfilment

Nearby words

• Happy Birthday to You

July 3, 2018

"The pursuit of happiness" means more in the Declaration of Independence than simply chasing a fleeting feeling.

3 ways to pursue 'thick' happiness

First, the most important thing is to realize that the happy life is about more than just me: my health, my wealth, my safety and security.

A robust understanding of human flourishing means it is for all and that means that our “pursuit” of happiness must transcend narrow nationalisms and thin tribalisms.

We would not permit, say, one political party to flourish and deny the chance for another to do the same. Or, to shift the imagery, we would not want our daughters to flourish but not our sons. Why, then, are we satisfied to let some neighborhoods in a city languish, or some schools in a district fail? Why are we willing to let some countries deteriorate?

Not because we are committed to the “unalienable right” of happiness, but only because we are selfishly committed to a narrow, individualized understanding of localized hedonism. But, as the positive psychology literature shows (and the biblical book of Ecclesiastes knows this too), more pleasure or more “stuff” will never bring true happiness and flourishing.

So, first and foremost, we have to think more globally, more organically. In the republic, all citizens should flourish, and in the global village, all persons should flourish — including those that aren’t (yet) citizens!

Second, thinking about happiness as a “global village” issue shows that human flourishing will only be achieved if we take better care of our world.

This is a truly transnational issue. All humans share this planet and therefore all humans — and all governments — must take responsibility for its care, particularly in redressing the lack of care that we have exercised for far too long. Without doing so, there will simply be no place for humans to flourish. Could it be any more simple?

Third, despite the important role played by governments and law, it is increasingly clear that important things like food, medicine and safe living conditions cannot always wait for the slow movements of governments.

Positive psychology has highlighted the crucial role of positive institutions , including — when they function at their best — families, workplaces and communities of faith. These must be ready to do the hard work of helping others flourish when the government proves ineffectual (as it often does).

When the government is effective and rightly functioning as one such positive institution, I firmly believe we will see far less “enforcement,” whether via the police or military, and far more “empowerment.” I myself believe these are related: more empowerment of people — facilitating their flourishing — will mean enforcement just won’t be needed anymore. It will become passé !

In the Bible, the prophet Isaiah has a vision along these very lines: a time where everyone will turn in their weapon and melt them all down to make more farm equipment (Isa 2:4). That is not a bad vision of thick happiness: for both humanity and the world!

Editor's note: Since this interview was originally published on June 30, 2014, it has consistently ranked among the most-read articles in the Emory News Center. As the Fourth of July holiday again approaches, we spoke with Professor Brent Strawn about why a "thick" understanding of "the pursuit of happiness" may be even more important in our current political climate. His additional answers appear at the end of the interview.

More than just fireworks and cookouts, the Fourth of July offers an opportunity to reflect on how our founders envisioned our new nation — including the Declaration of Independence's oft-quoted "unalienable right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But our contemporary understanding of "pursuit of happiness" is a thinner, less meaningful shadow of what the Declaration's authors intended, according to Brent Strawn, who teaches religion and theology in Emory's Candler School of Theology and Graduate Division of Religion.

"It may be that the American Dream, if that is parsed as lots of money and the like, isn't a sufficient definition of the good life or true happiness. It may, in fact, be detrimental," notes Strawn, editor of "The Bible and the Pursuit of Happiness: What the Old and New Testaments Teach Us About the Good Life." (Oxford University Press, 2012)

As we celebrate Independence Day, Strawn discusses what "pursuit of happiness" is commonly thought to mean today, what our founders meant, and how a "thick" understanding of happiness can be a better guide for both individuals and nations.

What 'happiness' means

The Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What do you think the phrase "pursuit of happiness" means to most people who hear it today?

I think most people think "pursuit" in that phrase means "chasing happiness" — as in the phrase "in hot pursuit." This would mean that "the pursuit of happiness" has to do with "seeking it" or "going after it" somehow.

How does this differ from what our nation's founders meant when the Declaration of Independence was written?

It differs a lot! Arthur Schlesinger should be credited with pointing out in a nice little essay in 1964 that at the time of the Declaration's composition, "the pursuit of happiness" did not mean chasing or seeking it, but actually practicing happiness, the experience of happiness — not just chasing it but actually catching it, you might say.

This is demonstrated by documents that are contemporary with the Declaration, but also by the Declaration itself, in the continuation of the same sentence that contains "the pursuit of happiness" phrase. The continuation speaks of effecting people's safety and happiness. But the clearest explanation might be the Virginia Convention's Declaration of Rights, which dates to June 12, 1776, just a few weeks before July 4. The Virginia Declaration actually speaks of the "pursuing and obtaining" of happiness.

Why does this difference matter?

Seeking happiness is one thing but actually obtaining it and experiencing it — practicing happiness! — is an entirely different matter. It's the difference between dreaming and reality. Remember that the pursuit of happiness, in the Declaration, is not a quest or a pastime , but "an unalienable right." Everyone has the right to actually be happy, not just try to be happy. To use a metaphor: You don't just get the chance to make the baseball team, you are guaranteed a spot. That's a very different understanding.

Unalienable rights and the role of government

The next part of the sentence in the Declaration of Independence states "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." What does it mean to say, as you have written, that "the Declaration makes that obtaining and practicing of happiness a matter of government and public policy, not one of individual leisure or pleasure"?

I think it means, at least in part, that the happiness of which the Declaration speaks is not simple, light and momentary pleasure à la some hedonic understandings of happiness ("do what feels right"; "if it makes you happy…"). In the Declaration, "the pursuit of happiness" is listed with the other "unalienable rights" of "life" and "liberty." Those are qualities of existence, states of being. You are either alive or dead, free or enslaved.

Governments have something to say about those states by how they govern their citizens. If happiness is akin to life and liberty —as the Declaration and the original meaning of "the pursuit of happiness" say — then we are not dealing with momentary pleasurable sensations ("I'm happy the sun came out this afternoon") but with deep and extended qualities of life (the happiness one feels to be cancer-free, for instance).

According to the Declaration, the extended quality of happiness — what we might call the good or flourishing life — is or should be a primary concern of government. That means it isn't just about my happiness, especially idiosyncratically defined, but about all citizens' happiness.

If the founders' understanding of the "pursuit of happiness" does, indeed, have "profound public policy ramifications, and thus real connections to social justice," what are some specific examples of actions the government does or should take to secure that right today?

If we operate with a thick definition of happiness, then we have to think beyond simplistic understandings of happiness — as important as those are — and think about the good life more broadly. It may be that the American Dream, if that is parsed as lots of money and the like, isn't a sufficient definition of the good life or true happiness. It may, in fact, be detrimental.

Empirical research in happiness has shown that more money does not, in fact, make a significant difference in someone's happiness. The ultra-rich are not any happier than the average middle-class person (and sometimes to the contrary). So, moving beyond just the hedonic aspects of happiness, researchers have demonstrated the importance of positive emotions, positive individual traits (e.g., virtues), and positive institutions.

Governments could (and should, according to the Declaration) enable such things. To lift up just two examples that I think a lot about myself, the government needs to take action to guarantee all citizens' health and safety. A thick definition of happiness certainly includes many things — and sick people can in fact be very happy, can live flourishing lives — but positive institutions that keep us healthy and safe are, to my mind, specific and concrete ways the government can help a country's "gross national happiness" index (the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan actually measures its country's GNH!).

Food, medicine, safe living conditions — those are a few important building blocks of a happy life that governments can address.

Your book focuses on what the Bible teaches us about the pursuit of happiness, and you also note the current role of positive psychology as our society's primary arena for asking what "happiness" means. What is the most important lesson we can learn from both of those sources to help us understand and pursue happiness now?

Just this — that both the Bible and positive psychology give us a very thick understanding of the word "happiness." It is not about breakfast being yummy. It is about human flourishing, the good life, the obtaining and experiencing of all that can be glossed with the word "happiness," but only carefully and usually with a few sentences of explanation required to flesh it all out.

A thick understanding of "happiness" means that we have to think beyond only pleasurable sensations or think about redefining "happiness" altogether if "pleasure" is the only thing it means. If that's the only thing "happiness" means anymore, then we have a case of "word pollution" and we need to reclaim or redefine the word or perhaps use a different one altogether, at least for a while.

Redefining simplistic, thin definitions of "happiness" means that we come to terms that the happy life does not mean a life devoid of real problems and real pain. Those, too, are part of life and can even contribute to human growth and flourishing, which means they can and must be incorporated into a thick notion of happiness. As one positive psychologist has said: The only people who don't feel normal negative feelings are the pathologically psychotic, and the dead. Or, according to the biblical book of Psalms, the only people who live lives of constant comfort and pleasure are the wicked!

So, positive psychology speaks of post-traumatic growth — a kind of growth only experienced (and only able to be experienced) after grief. Or, to think about the New Testament, when Christians call the day Jesus was crucified "Good Friday," they certainly do not mean by that that it was a fun-filled day.

Instead, that is a very thick use of the word "good" and that is the kind of thick use that we must have when we speak of "happiness" — one that can encompass sorrow; that includes social concerns like food, health, and safety; and that is about experiencing the good, flourishing life, not just hoping for it.

Pursuing happiness in today's world

(Update) Does the current political climate in the United States impact the need for a “thick” understanding of the pursuit of happiness?

Since this article first appeared, I admit that I am even more struck now, in 2018, by the need for the government to help people attain — pursue and actually reach — key elements of human flourishing: food, safety, medicine and the like.

Politically, of course, people will differ on these issues and how they are best achieved, but it is clear that in recent years in this country we have had vicious political debates over things that are, at root, profoundly connected to these elements of happiness and who will gain access to them. Take, for example, the debate over universal health care. Or debates over gun violence and gun control. Or immigration. Each is complicated and multifaceted. 

People who are for stricter immigration laws are likely concerned about their own safety and well-being. This is fully understandable. And yet, if happiness is a universal right, which is what the Declaration of Independence states, then that means we must consider the safety and well-being of others, too — including the safety and well-being of immigrants and refugees who would otherwise be turned away at our borders.

In this regard, the biblical story of Ruth the Moabitess is rather remarkable. Had she been turned away at the border, then Israel would have never had its greatest king, David, since he was her great-grandson. Or, to continue the lineage a bit further, without Ruth there is not only no David, there is also no Jesus, since, according to the New Testament, he is a direct descendant from Ruth, the Moabite refugee. 

Or, to switch topics, one might like to stockpile weapons in order to feel safe, but one must ask about the effects of gun culture, the proliferation of guns, and if all that is, in fact, a truly safer way of life for the flourishing of all people. Statistics from other modern industrialized countries in the world that do not have the same gun obsession as America suggest, in fact, that it is not necessarily a safer way — or at least, such data indicate that the proliferation of weaponry is certainly not the only way to think about safety and well-being.

So, now, in 2018, I continue to think that the thickest and best definition of “the pursuit of happiness” means we must think about facilitating the achievement of others’ happiness, and not be inordinately or exclusively self-obsessed with our own.

Such a regard for others and their happiness would have certainly resonated with the early founders of our country, many of whom were themselves immigrants, and who were concerned not simply with their own well-being but with all those who would come after them in the United States.

The happiness of other, future generations was insured, as it were, in the Declaration and its claim regarding this “unalienable right.” Concern for other people’s happiness is also unquestionably true for the Bible where, among many examples, one might cite Jesus' instruction to his disciples: "No one has greater love than to give up one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13, Common English Bible).

I have to admit, however, that I am less sanguine now, in 2018, about the government’s interest in and ability to produce widespread happiness of the thickest variety for all people. The vast majority of what comes across the news scrawl these days seems remarkably parochial if not downright tribalistic. The “happiness” that is being sought is typically up for sale to the highest bidder with the most power (including firepower).

Such a vision of “happiness” is truly thin and can never lay appropriate claim to the Declaration’s grand vision of flourishing. But the Declaration’s grand vision is still there! And that gives me hope that good peoples throughout the world and throughout society and government may yet seek the greatest good for all humanity. May it be so!

• Graduate School
• School of Theology
• Religion and Ethics

Recent News

• About the Soka Gakkai
• At a Glance
• Legacy of the Founding Presidents
• A Global Organization
• Buddhist lineage
• Lotus Sutra
• Lives of the Founding Presidents
• Tsunesaburo Makiguchi
• Daisaku Ikeda
• Our History
• Soka Gakkai Charter
• Practicing Buddhism
• Daily Practice
• Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
• The Gohonzon
• How to Chant
• Personal Experiences
• Treasure the Connection: Faces of the Soka Gakkai
• Key Buddhist Concepts
• Action on Global Issues
• Global Issues Awareness
• Initiatives
• Discover Hope for Change
• Affiliated Organizations
• Study Materials
• Daily Encouragement
• Global Issues Resources
• Expert Perspectives
• Constitution of the Soka Gakkai
• Soka Gakkai Books and Publications
• Related Websites
• General Inquiries
• Terms of Use

• Nichiren Buddhism Library
• Buddhist Study
• The Wisdom for Creating Happiness and Peace
• Part 1: Happiness; Chapter 1:What Is True Happiness? [1.6]

Part 1: Happiness; Chapter 1: What Is True Happiness? [1.6]

1.6 the six conditions for happiness.

President Ikeda presents six points for attaining happiness in this speech at an SGI general meeting in the U.S.A., and stresses that all of them are included in the practice of Nichiren Buddhism.

In his writings, Nichiren Daishonin states, “You must not spend your lives in vain and regret it for ten thousand years to come” (WND-1, 622). How should we live our lives? What is the most valuable and worthwhile way to live? A well-known Japanese poem goes: “The life of a flower is short / Sufferings only are there many.” 1 The meaning of these lines is that flowers suddenly come into bloom and then, just as suddenly, their petals fall and scatter; ultimately, the only thing that lasts for a long time is suffering. Life, indeed, may be like that in some ways. A philosopher once remarked that perhaps the only way to determine happiness or unhappiness in life is by adding up, at the end of one’s days, all the joys and all the sorrows one had experienced and basing one’s final evaluation on whichever figure was larger. Despite having illustrious positions in society or great material wealth, there are many people who fail to become happy. Despite enjoying wonderfully happy marriages or relationships, people must ultimately be parted from the person they love through death. Being separated from loved ones is one of the unavoidable sufferings inherent in the human condition. There are many who, despite gaining great fame and popularity, die after long, agonizing illnesses. Despite being born with exceptional beauty, not a few have been brought to misery by this seeming advantage. Where is happiness to be found? How can we become happy? These are fundamental questions of life, and human beings are no doubt destined to pursue them eternally. The teachings of Nichiren Buddhism and faith in the Mystic Law provide fundamental answers to these questions. Ultimately, happiness rests on our establishing a solid sense of self. Happiness based on such externals as possessing a fine house or a good reputation is “relative happiness.” It is not a firm, unchanging “absolute happiness.” Some might seem to be in the most fortunate circumstances, but if they feel only emptiness and pain, then they cannot be considered happy. Some people live in truly splendid houses yet do nothing but fight in them. Some people work for famous companies and enjoy a prestige that many envy yet are always being shouted at by their superiors, are left exhausted from heavy workloads, and feel no sense of joy or fulfillment in life. Happiness does not lie in outward appearances or in vanity. It is a matter of what we feel inside; it is a deep resonance in our lives. I would venture, therefore, that the first condition for happiness is fulfillment. To be filled each day with a rewarding sense of exhilaration and purpose, a sense of tasks accomplished and deep fulfillment—people who feel this way are happy. Those who have this sense of satisfaction even if they are extremely busy are much happier than those who have free time on their hands but feel empty inside. As practitioners of Nichiren Buddhism, we get up in the morning and do gongyo. Some perhaps may do so rather reluctantly! Nevertheless, doing gongyo is itself a truly great and noble thing. Gongyo is a solemn ceremony in which we are, in a manner of speaking, gazing out across the universe; it is a dialogue with the universe. Doing gongyo and chanting daimoku before the Gohonzon represent the dawn, the start of a new day, in our lives; it is the sun rising; it gives us a profound sense of contentment in the depths of our being that nothing can surpass. Even on this point alone, we are truly fortunate. Some people appear to be happy but actually start off the day feeling depressed. A husband might be admonished by his wife in the morning and begin his day dejected, wondering, “How on earth did I get into such a marriage?” He will savor neither happiness nor contentment. Just by looking at our mornings, it is clear that we in the SGI lead lives of profound worth and satisfaction. In addition, each of you is striving to do your best in your job or other responsibilities and to win in all areas of life while using your spare time to work for Buddhism, kosen-rufu, people’s happiness, and the welfare of society. In this Latter Day of the Law teeming with perverse individuals, you are exerting yourselves energetically, often amid many hardships and obstacles, chanting daimoku for others’ happiness, traveling long distances to talk with friends and show them warm concern and understanding. You are truly bodhisattvas. There is no nobler life, no life based on a loftier philosophy. Each of you is translating this unsurpassed philosophy into action and spreading its message far and wide. To possess a philosophy of such profound value is itself the greatest fortune. Accordingly, the second condition for happiness is to possess a profound philosophy. The third condition for happiness is to possess conviction. We live in an age in which people can no longer clearly distinguish what is right or wrong, good or evil. This is a global trend. If things continue in this way, humanity is destined for chaos and moral decay. In the midst of such times, you are upholding and earnestly practicing Nichiren Buddhism, a teaching of the highest good. In “The Opening of the Eyes,” the Daishonin writes: “This I will state. Let the gods forsake me. Let all persecutions assail me. Still I will give my life for the sake of the Law” (WND-1, 280). In this same letter, he instructs his believers not to be swayed by temptations or threats, however great—such as being offered the rulership of Japan or being told that one’s parents will be beheaded (cf. WND-1, 280). The important thing is holding on resolutely to one’s convictions, come what may, just as the Daishonin teaches. People who possess such unwavering conviction will definitely become happy. Each of you is such an individual. The fourth condition is living cheerfully and vibrantly. Those who are always complaining and grumbling make not only themselves but everyone else around them miserable and unhappy. By contrast, those who always live positively and filled with enthusiasm—those who possess a cheerful and sunny disposition that lifts the spirits and brightens the hearts of everyone they meet—are not only happy themselves but are a source of hope and inspiration for others. Those who are always wearing long, gloomy expressions whenever you meet them and who have lost the ability to rejoice and feel genuine delight or wonder lead dark, cheerless existences. On the other hand, those who possess good cheer can view even a scolding by a loved one, such as a spouse or partner, as sweet music to their ears, or can greet a child’s poor report card as a sign of great potential for improvement! Viewing events and situations in this kind of positive light is important. The strength, wisdom, and cheerfulness that accompany such an attitude lead to happiness. To regard everything in a positive light or with a spirit of goodwill, however, does not mean being foolishly gullible and allowing people to take advantage of our good nature. It means having the wisdom and perception to actually move things in a positive direction by seeing things in their best light, while all the time keeping our eyes firmly focused on reality. Faith and the teachings of Buddhism enable us to develop that kind of character. The acquisition of such character is a more priceless treasure than any other possession in life. The fifth condition for happiness is courage. Courageous people can overcome anything. The cowardly, on the other hand, because of their lack of courage, fail to savor the true, profound joys of life. This is most unfortunate. The sixth condition for happiness is tolerance. Those who are tolerant and broad-minded make people feel comfortable and at ease. Narrow and intolerant people who berate others for the slightest thing or who make a great commotion each time some problem arises just exhaust and intimidate everyone. Leaders must be tolerant and have a warm approachability that makes people feel relaxed and comfortable. Not only are those who possess a heart as wide as the ocean happy themselves, but all those around them are happy, too. The six conditions I have just mentioned are all ultimately encompassed in the single word faith . A life based on faith in the Mystic Law is a life of unsurpassed happiness. The Daishonin declares, “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is the greatest of all joys” (OTT, 212). I hope all of you will savor the truth of these words deep in your lives and show vibrant actual proof of that joy. From a speech at an SGI general meeting, U.S.A., June 23, 1996.

The Wisdom for Creating Happiness and Peace brings together selections from President Ikeda’s works under key themes .

• *1 By Japanese author Fumiko Hayashi.
• Part 1: Happiness; Chapter 1: What Is True Happiness? [1.5]
• Part 1: Happiness; Chapter 1: What Is True Happiness? [1.7]
• What is the Soka Gakkai?
• Buddhist Concepts
• Commemorative Dates
• Peace & Disarmament
• Education for Sustainable Development & Climate Action
• Human Rights Education & Humanitarian Relief
• The Guiding Light of the Lotus Sutra: A Conversation with Lokesh Chandra
• Stewarding Our Future: A Conversation with Jeffrey Sachs
• Living the Bodhisattva Ideal: A Conversation with Prof. em. Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer
• No Action is Too Small: Vanessa Nakate on Combating the Climate Crisis
• A Window on the Future: President Tommy Remengesau on the Plight of the Pacific Islands
• A Compassion Revolution: Carlos Rubio on the Universality of Nichiren’s Teachings
• Doing What We Can: A Conversation with Beatrice Fihn
• Upholding Human Dignity: A Conversation with Rev. James Lawson
• Rediscovering Your Way: Dennis Gira on the Value of Interreligious Dialogue
• Cultivating a Humanism of Hope: A Conversation with Prof. Jim Garrison

Discover hope for change. Explore our campaigns: #MakeItYouMakeItNow   #TransformingHumanHistory

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of happiness

• blessedness
• blissfulness
• warm fuzzies

Examples of happiness in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'happiness.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

15th century, in the meaning defined at sense 3

Articles Related to happiness

'Happify', 'Imparadise', and 5 More...

'Happify', 'Imparadise', and 5 More Happy Words to Get You Through Winter

Winter is hard. These words will help.

Dictionary Entries Near happiness

Cite this entry.

“Happiness.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/happiness. Accessed 13 May. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of happiness, more from merriam-webster on happiness.

Nglish: Translation of happiness for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of happiness for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about happiness

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), popular in wordplay, the words of the week - may 10, a great big list of bread words, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 8 uncommon words related to love, 9 superb owl words, games & quizzes.

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

happiness noun

• Hide all quotations

Earlier version

• happiness in OED Second Edition (1989)

What does the noun happiness mean?

There are five meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun happiness . See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.

How common is the noun happiness ?

How is the noun happiness pronounced, british english, u.s. english, where does the noun happiness come from.

Earliest known use

Middle English

The earliest known use of the noun happiness is in the Middle English period (1150—1500).

OED's earliest evidence for happiness is from around 1473, in a translation by William Caxton, printer, merchant, and diplomat.

happiness is formed within English, by derivation.

Etymons: happy adj. , ‑ness suffix .

Nearby entries

• happenly, adv. c1450–1554
• happen-so, n. 1816–
• happenstance, n. & adj. 1857–
• happer, v.¹ 1519
• happer, v.² 1587–
• happi, n. 1880–
• happi-coat, n. 1927–
• happify, v. 1612–
• happiless, adj. 1582–
• happily, adv. a1375–
• happiness, n. ?1473–
• happing, n.¹ ?c1400–
• happing, n.² c1440
• happing, adj. 1593–1625
• happious, adj. 1532
• happy, adj. & n. a1387–
• happy, v. 1600–
• happy-be-lucky, adv. 1633–1836
• happy camper, n. 1957–
• happy-clappy, adj. & n. 1985–
• happy couple, n. 1631–

Meaning & use

All my lyf hath ben nouryshyd in happynes .

Suche seldome sauour fortunes happynes .

Fortoune, þat in hie happynes Settis seire mene.

Wish me partaker in thy happinesse , When thou do'st meet good hap.

Whether..we follow them by the only force of natural happiness , or instinct.

We all bowed to the ground; the supplest of the company had the happiness to touch the sacred slipper.

I had the happiness to sit as the representative of that large and opulent town for a period of six years.

Sure we cannot have had the happiness to meet you for nothing. 'T was ordained you should walk in upon us.

He replied with some tartness that he had the happiness to know his royal father better than I, and desired me not to be too confident in the knowledge of how his ghost would speak.

• heal Old English–1605 Well-being, welfare, safety; prosperity.
• selth Old English–1425 Prosperity, good fortune, happiness.
• weal Old English– Welfare, well-being, happiness, prosperity.
• goder-heal a1225–1400 Welfare, prosperity.
• prosperity ?c1225– The condition of being prosperous, successful, or thriving; good fortune, success, well-being, wealth.
• wealth a1300–1600 The condition of being happy and prosperous; well-being. Obsolete (exc. archaic ). Of a person.
• state c1300–1651 With of . The community of people in the church, a country, realm, etc., considered with regard to its welfare and polity; the condition of…
• health a1325–1611 Well-being, welfare, safety; deliverance.
• welfare 1357– The state or condition of doing or being well; well-being, prosperity, success; the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
• theedom 1362–1522 Thriving; prosperity.
• wealfulness c1374–1532
• bonchief a1387–1530 Good fortune, prosperity, easy circumstances.
• felicity 1393– Prosperity; good fortune, success. Now rare .
• boot a1400–30 loosely , Well-being, weal. Obsolete .
• well a1400–1650 Well-being, welfare, advantage, profit. In general use. Frequently in for the well of . Cf. weal , n.¹ 2a. Obsolete .
• well-doing c1440– The fact or condition of doing well or thriving; welfare, good health; prosperity, success. Cf. well-being , n. , well-doing , adj. 2. Now archaic and…
• prosperance a1460–1503 Prosperity.
• happiness ?1473– Good fortune or good luck in life generally or in a particular affair; success, prosperity. Now rare .
• quartfulness 1483 Health; prosperity.
• brightness a1500– Happiness, success, or prosperity, esp. as a likely future prospect.
• goodness a1500–1743 Good fortune; prosperity. Obsolete .
• sonse a1500– Abundance, plenty; prosperity; happiness; luck.
• thriftiness ?1529 Thriving condition, prosperity. Obsolete . rare .
• prosperation 1543– Prosperity.
• well-being 1561– With reference to a person or community: the state of being healthy, happy, or prosperous; physical, psychological, or moral welfare.
• prosperousness 1600– The quality or condition of being prosperous; prosperity, success.
• fair world 1641 A state of well-being or prosperity.
• thrivingness 1818– Thriving condition.
• goldenness 1829– The quality or condition of being golden (in various senses of the adjective).
• palminess 1875– The state or quality of being palmy; triumph, prosperity.

How great a happynes or quietie (it is) to a father to haue his chyldren by al thinges.

So much the more despising these instable & imperfect happinesses of this life.

Nature hath..heaped into this teritorie..all those delightfull happinesses .

Ten thousand happinesses wait on you.

It is a very great Happiness , and particular Providence of God, that the Sea and Rivers here seem..to contest.

It was therefore one of our greatest Happinesses .

Heaped up happinesses in the plural belong to that man who fears the Lord.

The young woman wiped away her tears and came forward to wish them ten thousand happinesses .

• hap c1225–1813 Good fortune, good luck; success, prosperity. In early use also paired with heal , n. , sele , n. Cf. goodhap , n. Obsolete .
• whate c1330 ? Good fortune, luck.
• fortune 1390– absol. (= good fortune): Good luck; success, prosperity.
• good luck 1481– A combination of favourable circumstances or events occurring by chance; success, prosperity, or advantage apparently brought about by chance rather…
• luck a1500– The chance occurrence of situations or events favourable to a person's interests; success, prosperity, or advantage apparently brought about by…
• Lady Luck a1535– = fortune , n. 1a (cf. Dame Fortune at dame , n. II.6a).
• happiness 1540– An instance or cause of good fortune. Frequently in plural (in later use often as part of a stylized formula for wishing good fortune).
• goodhap 1557– Good fortune. Cf. mishap , n. 1.
• faustity 1656–1729 ‘Good luck, happiness’.
• serendipity 1754– The faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident. Also, the fact or an instance of such a discovery.
• kokum 1851–64 Advantageous or favourable circumstances; luck. Obsolete .
• dumb luck 1864– Luck, esp. good luck, viewed as being even more unpredictable or arbitrary than usual; pure chance.
• bonanza 1878– figurative and in extended use.

My sone, Set nocht thi happynes In na syk plays mar na les.

Who can prayse and meruayle ynough at your filycyte & happynes , most blessed Leo.

Like beast [that] hath no hope of happinesse or blis.

To sowre your happinesse , I must report The Queene is dead.

Let it suffice thee that thou know'st Us happie, and without Love no happiness .

Happiness consists in the attainment of the highest and most lasting natural good.

O Happiness ! our Being's End and Aim! Good, Pleasure, Ease, Content! whate'er thy name.

Happiness signifies a gratified state of all the faculties.

Each one's happiness may be defined as the surplus centre when the total of pain is subtracted from the total of pleasure.

How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness , is in fact for most men at all times the secret motive of all they do.

He said happiness and a life without tension were key to his longevity.

• queemness Old English–1250 Pleasure, satisfaction.
• queem c1175–1500 Pleasure, satisfaction. Chiefly in to (a person's) queem : so as to be satisfactory; to a person's liking or satisfaction. to take to queem : to accept.
• suffisance c1374–1592 Satisfaction, contentment. Obsolete .
• pleasing c1400– The giving of pleasure or satisfaction; the fact of being pleased or satisfied; gratification, satisfaction. Also: an instance of this.
• complacence c1436– Pleasure, delight; satisfaction. Obsolete .
• resting ?a1475– The action or an act of placing hope or trust in a person or thing (also with † on , † upon ); reliance on , confidence in ; continued satisfaction.
• satisfaction 1477– The state or quality of feeling satisfied or contented; (in later use chiefly) gratification, pleasure, or contentment caused by a fact, event, or…
• happiness a1500– The state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one's circumstances.
• thankfulness 1500 Gratification, satisfaction. Obsolete . rare .
• contention 1516– = contentation , n. Obsolete .
• contentation a1533– Contented or satisfied condition. archaic .
• contenting 1541– The action of content , v. ; satisfaction, contentment, content. Now rare .
• satisfiedness 1571– The fact or quality of being satisfied; satisfaction.
• content 1578– Satisfaction, pleasure; a contented condition. (Now esp. as a habitual frame of mind.)
• contentedness 1581– The state or quality of being contented.
• appeasement 1586– The result of appeasing; the state of being appeased; pacification, satisfaction.
• contentment 1597– The fact, condition, or quality of being contented; contentedness. (The usual modern sense.)
• heart's content 1600– heart's content : now in phrase, to one's heart's content , to one's full inward satisfaction.
• acquiescence 1612– The action, condition, or quality of acquiescing ( acquiesce , v. 2a); untroubled contentment, quiet satisfaction. Now archaic and rare .
• pleasedness 1626– The condition or appearance of being pleased; pleasure, satisfaction.
• well-apaidness 1633–42
• well-pleasedness 1633– Great pleasure, contentment, or satisfaction; an instance of this.
• complacency 1643– The fact or state of being pleased with a thing or person; tranquil pleasure or satisfaction in something or someone.
• acquiescency 1646– = acquiescence , n. (in various senses).
• bliss Old English– Blitheness; gladness; joy, delight, enjoyment. Physical, social, mundane: passing at length into 2b.
• eadiness Old English–1250 Happiness, prosperity; blessedness.
• sele Old English– Happiness, prosperity, good fortune. on sele , a sele (Old English on sǽlum , on sálum ): happy.
• eadilaik c1175 Happiness, prosperity.
• blissfulness c1374– The quality or state of being blissful; joyfulness, happiness.
• seeliness c1374–1532 Happiness, blessedness.
• felicity c1386– The state of being happy; happiness (in modern use with stronger sense, intense happiness, bliss); a particular instance or kind of this.
• beneurte 1480 Happiness, blessedness.
• seelihead a1500 Happiness.
• glee 1579–88 A state of exaltation or prosperity. Obsolete .
• eudemony 1727– Happiness, prosperity.
• a song in one's heart 1862– a song in one's heart : a feeling of joy or pleasure. Often in with a song in one's heart .
• the bluebird of happiness 1911– the bluebird of happiness : happiness symbolized as a bluebird, frequently considered elusive.

I am transform'd into a happiness Cannot be figured.

It is a happiness to a man to be able to amuse himself with writing.

Mother asked me if I did not think it a happiness to be able to bestow pleasure on those poor friends of hers?

Such a happiness that it has all come right.

It is a happiness to me to put my feet upon the soil of Massachusetts.

I saw a very red robin this morning. What small happinesses .

Who but a hypochondriac would state that his idea of a perfect happiness was not having a headache?

• honeycomb Old English– figurative . Something resembling a honeycomb in sweetness; that which is good, pleasant, or desirable.
• sweetness ?c1225– Pleasant feeling, delight, pleasure; also, a source of delight or pleasure. Now rare or merged in other senses.
• dainty 1340–1798 concrete . Anything estimable, choice, fine, pleasing or delightful; hence occasionally, a luxury, rarity (cf. dainty , adj. 2). Obsolete except as…
• sweet 1377– That which is pleasant to the mind or feelings; something that affords enjoyment or gratifies desire; (a) pleasure, (a) delight; the pleasant part of …
• delice c1390–1843 A luxurious or pleasurable thing; a source of pleasure; a luxury, a delight. Also: a desire. Obsolete .
• lust 1390–1549 Quasi- concrete . A source of pleasure or delight; †an attraction, charm ( obsolete ). poetic .
• pleasance c1390– A source of pleasure; that in which a person delights. Now rare .
• pleasing c1390–1633 A pleasing thing or action, a source of pleasure, an object of delight. Obsolete .
• well-queem a1400 Benevolence, favour; pleasure. Also: a thing which is pleasing or agreeable (cf. well-queemness , n. ).
• well-queemness a1400 A thing which is pleasing or agreeable.
• douceur c1400– Sweetness and pleasantness of manner; amiability, gentleness.
• delectation ?a1425– Something which is a source of pleasure or delight; a very pleasant or gratifying thing; (sometimes) spec. a very appetizing food, drink, or dish…
• pleasure 1443– A source or object of pleasure or delight; a pleasurable experience.
• pleaser c1447– A person who or thing which pleases, or aims at pleasing. Frequently as the second element in objective compounds.
• delectabilities a1500– In plural . Delectable things; delights; (in later use) esp. delicious foods, drinks, etc.; delicacies.
• deliciosities a1500– In plural . Delicious or delightful things; delights; (in later use spec. ) delicious foods, dishes, etc.; delicacies.
• honeydew 1559– figurative and in figurative contexts, esp. a delightful or desirable thing.
• delicacy 1586–1882 A source of delight or enjoyment; a very enjoyable or pleasurable thing. Obsolete ( archaic in later use).
• fancy 1590–1712 ‘Something that pleases or entertains’ (Johnson).
• sugar candy 1591– figurative . Something that is very sweet or pleasant. Also used as a term of endearment or affectionate form of address, esp. to a woman or child.
• regalo 1622–1847 A present, esp. of choice food or drink; a lavish meal or entertainment. Also figurative . Cf. regale , n.²
• happiness 1637– An instance or source of pleasure or contentment.
• deliciousness 1651– In plural . Delicious or delightful things; delights.
• complacence 1667 concrete . An object or source of pleasure and satisfaction. Obsolete .
• regale a1677– In extended use. Now rare .
• sweetener 1741– Something that produces (or restores) pleasant feeling; something pleasing, gratifying, or comforting; also, a means of persuasion, an inducement…
• bon-bon 1856– transferred and figurative .
• Bones 1869– The Skull and Bones, an exclusive and secretive senior undergraduate society at Yale University; see Skull and Bones , n. Also and in earliest use…
• jam 1871– transferred and figurative . Something good or sweet, esp. with allusion to the use of sweets to hide the disagreeable taste of medicine, or the like…
• true love 1893– Chiefly with possessive pronoun. figurative . Something that a person loves dearly and that provides an unfailing source of pleasure or satisfaction.
• nuts 1910– Expressing incredulity, rejection, etc.: ‘nonsense!’, ‘rubbish!’ Also used (frequently with to ) to express contempt for or disregard of a person or…
• barrel of fun (laughs, etc.) 1915– In figurative phrase barrel of fun (laughs, etc.) : (the source of) a great deal of enjoyment or entertainment. colloquial (originally U.S. ).
• G-spot 1983– figurative . Something likened to the G-spot (sense 1) in being a source of great pleasure, excitement, or satisfaction.

By hys singuler vigilancye sought them oute, by his hyghe prudence espyed them,..& with great happines toke them quyte awaye.

Claudio He is a very proper man. Prince He hath indeede a good outward happines .

The charge of the whole fleete she committed to Charles Howard of Effingham..of whose happinesse she had a very good perswasion.

There being certain Graces and Happinesses peculiar to every Language.

He..reduces it from strength of thought to happiness of language.

Possessing no vigour of language, and gifted with no happiness of expression.

If his ideas are common as flies, the happiness of his style and his personality has made them as rare and as immortal as flies in amber.

• rightness ?a1425– Accordance with truth or fact; correctness, accuracy, precision.
• aptness a1538– Fitness for a purpose; suitableness, appropriateness.
• happiness 1550– Successful or felicitous aptitude, fitness, suitability, or appropriateness; felicity. Also: an instance of this. Now rare .
• felicity 1605– A happy faculty in art or speech; admirable appropriateness or grace of invention or expression.
• aptitude 1643– The quality of being fit for a purpose or position, or suited to general requirements; fitness, suitableness, appropriateness.
• patness 1653– The quality or condition of being pat or to the point; aptness. In recent use also: glibness.
• appositeness 1664– The quality of being apposite, aptness.
• apropos 1860– An opportune or pertinent occurrence ( obsolete ); pertinency.

Happiness is a warm puppy.

Happiness is a warm gun.

Happiness is ..just-a-few-earlies in the vegetable garden.

If you're hardcore about mountain-biking, happiness is a great off-road trail that offers gut-wrenching uphills, heart-stopping downhills and an environment that combines a sense of real exploration with wild, untouched natural beauty.

Happiness is never having to ask directions.

Pronunciation

• ð th ee
• ɬ rhingy ll

Some consonants can take the function of the vowel in unstressed syllables. Where necessary, a syllabic marker diacritic is used, hence <petal> /ˈpɛtl/ but <petally> /ˈpɛtl̩i/.

• a trap, bath
• ɑː start, palm, bath
• ɔː thought, force
• ᵻ (/ɪ/-/ə/)
• ᵿ (/ʊ/-/ə/)

Other symbols

• The symbol ˈ at the beginning of a syllable indicates that that syllable is pronounced with primary stress.
• The symbol ˌ at the beginning of a syllable indicates that that syllable is pronounced with secondary stress.
• Round brackets ( ) in a transcription indicate that the symbol within the brackets is optional.

View the pronunciation model here .

* /d/ also represents a 'tapped' /t/ as in <bitter>

Some consonants can take the function of the vowel in unstressed syllables. Where necessary, a syllabic marker diacritic is used, hence <petal> /ˈpɛd(ə)l/ but <petally> /ˈpɛdl̩i/.

• i fleece, happ y
• æ trap, bath
• ɑ lot, palm, cloth, thought
• ɔ cloth, thought
• ɔr north, force
• ə strut, comm a
• ər nurse, lett er
• ɛ(ə)r square
• æ̃ sal on

Simple Text Respell

Simple text respell breaks words into syllables, separated by a hyphen. The syllable which carries the primary stress is written in capital letters. This key covers both British and U.S. English Simple Text Respell.

b, d, f, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w and z have their standard English values

• arr carry (British only)
• a(ng) gratin
• o lot (British only)
• orr sorry (British only)
• o(ng) salon

Date of use

Variant forms.

• late Middle English–1600s happynes
• 1500s happynesse
• 1500s–1600s happines , happinesse
• 1600s hapines
• 1600s–1700s happyness
• 1600s– happiness

happiness is one of the 5,000 most common words in modern written English. It is similar in frequency to words like bedroom , inclusion , machinery , nursing , and satellite .

It typically occurs about 20 times per million words in modern written English.

happiness is in frequency band 6, which contains words occurring between 10 and 100 times per million words in modern written English. More about OED's frequency bands

Frequency of happiness, n. , 1750–2010

* Occurrences per million words in written English

Historical frequency series are derived from Google Books Ngrams (version 2), a data set based on the Google Books corpus of several million books printed in English between 1500 and 2010.

The overall frequency for a given word is calculated by summing frequencies for the main form of the word, any plural or inflected forms, and any major spelling variations.

For sets of homographs (distinct entries that share the same word-form, e.g. mole , n.¹, mole , n.², mole , n.³, etc.), we have estimated the frequency of each homograph entry as a fraction of the total Ngrams frequency for the word-form. This may result in inaccuracies.

Frequency of happiness, n. , 2017–2023

Modern frequency series are derived from a corpus of 20 billion words, covering the period from 2017 to the present. The corpus is mainly compiled from online news sources, and covers all major varieties of World English.

Compounds & derived words

• All compounds & derived words
• Curated compounds
• unhappiness , n. 1470– The condition of being unhappy in mind.
• bomb-happiness , n. 1944–
• trigger-happiness , n. 1945–

Whatever the new expenditure, the happiness index soon returns to its old figure, whatever that may be, determined by unseen facts of the individual psyche.

Among other findings from the happiness survey are: the state of a man's finances is no reliable gauge of his happiness.

The happiness index provided a rough measure which could be correlated with personality, sexual, and other background factors, the object being to discover factors that might be used in predicting the probable degree of adjustment in a given marriage.

Getting liberal dividends twice a year on insured savings keeps you reminded that you're building permanent security. Try that on your happiness meter!

Perhaps she can try a glass or two of tonic wine? More likely her G.P. will..prescribe a happiness pill.

‘ Happiness indicators’, such as land use, will be used to gauge the average Briton's quality of life.

Happiness levels throughout life form a U-curve, reaching their lowest ebb in the mid-forties before climbing back up into old age.

Entry history for happiness, n.

happiness, n. was revised in December 2013.

happiness, n. was last modified in September 2023.

oed.com is a living text, updated every three months. Modifications may include:

• further revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations.

Revisions and additions of this kind were last incorporated into happiness, n. in September 2023.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1898)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View happiness in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for happiness, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for happiness, n., browse entry.

Will the US adopt IHRA’s anti-Semitism definition? What’s the controversy?

IHRA claims its definition has been adopted by 43 governments, but the US has entered uncharted territory by introducing it into federal law.

The United States House of Representatives passed a bill on May 1 that could expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, and the Senate – the upper house of Congress – is now expected to debate and vote on the legislation.

The Democratic Party’s Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Thursday that the bill faced objections from some Democrats and Republicans, but that “we’re going to look for the best way to move forward”.

Keep reading

I spent 43 days in gaza’s now-destroyed hospitals. my mind is still there., ‘the war will end’: remembering mahmoud darwish, palestine’s poetic voice, this is not ‘netanyahu’s war’, it is israel’s genocide.

At the heart of the debate and controversy over the bill is the definition of anti-Semitism that it seeks to adopt – despite opposition from several civil liberties groups.

The bill codifies a definition drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) that has been accused of conflating criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Critics of the bill warn the non-legally binding working definition was developed as a tool for monitoring anti-Semitic incidents worldwide and was never intended to serve as a legal framework.

As protests against Israel’s war in Gaza continue to roil US campuses , concern is rising over the possible use of a new definition to stifle dissent and curb academic freedom.

What is the IHRA definition?

The IHRA is an intergovernmental body established in Stockholm in 1998 and comprised of 35 member nations and eight observers. Its stated purpose is to enhance “Holocaust education, remembrance and research”.

The organisation adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism during a plenary meeting in Bucharest on May 26, 2016 as a non-legally binding statement.

The IHRA definition consists of a four-line description as follows: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It goes on to provide 11 “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism” to illustrate its application, seven of which deal with the State of Israel.

One of the examples states that anti-Semitism is embodied in “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, i e, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

It is also anti-Semitic to apply “double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.

Which countries adopted the IHRA definition?

IHRA claims its definition has been adopted by 43 governments, including all European Union states except for Malta and Ireland.

However, there is no fixed rule on what adoption entails.

The United Kingdom was the first country to endorse it as a “non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism” to be used by public bodies and agencies. Others have followed suit in setting the definition as a guideline for public institutions.

The US was tallied as having formally adopted the definition in December 2019, when former President Donald Trump ordered executive departments and agencies charged with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and national origin – to “consider the definition”.

The US is now entering uncharted territory by attempting to introduce it into federal law, through the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2023,” which incorporates the IHRA definition into Title VI. The bill was passed by a margin of 320 to 91 in the House of Representatives on May 1 .

In a letter sent to US senators on May 3, the non-profit Middle East Studies Association argued the bill “endangers the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech as well as academic freedom at this country’s institutions of higher education”.

“We believe that requiring the federal government to define anti-Semitism so broadly and vaguely will have a chilling effect on scholarly and public discussion of international affairs and current events in this country,” it said.

“Indeed, it is likely to have the perverse effect of defining as anti-Semitism even criticism of Israeli policies advanced by Israeli scholars, or by Jewish students and faculty in the United States.”

Why is the definition controversial?

Several Middle East experts and prominent lawyers have argued it expands the definition of anti-Semitism beyond its traditional meaning of hatred against Jews to encompass all criticism of Jewish institutions, including Israel.

The slogans “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are considered anti-Semitic under the definition. As a result, monitoring organisations in several countries in the US and Europe warned of a rise in anti-Semitic incidents since the beginning of the war in Gaza on October 7.

A  statement  issued in 2022 by 128 scholars, including leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition had been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism.

Former UN Special Rapporteur on racism, E Tendayi Achiume, said it was being “wielded to prevent or suppress legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel, a State that must, like any other in the United Nations system, be accountable for human rights violations that it perpetrates”.

“Those primarily harmed as a result are Palestinians, as well as human rights defenders advocating on their behalf,” Achiume added in a 2022 report.

In the UK, where two-thirds of academic institutions adopted the definition, studies have found it had a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) and the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) analysed 40 cases where UK university staff or students in 14 institutions were accused of anti-Semitism. The report, published last year, found that none of these accusations resulted in legal action, except two that had yet to be substantiated.

Despite that, “those falsely accused have felt their reputations to have been sullied, and they are anxious about possible damage caused to their education and careers”.

Israeli Professor Neve Gordon, vice president of BRISMES and professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University in London, told Al Jazeera that by conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, the IHRA definition may result in the paradoxical branding of critical Jewish voices as anti-Semitic.

“If I were to teach in a class the Human Rights Watch report stating that Israel is an apartheid state, I could be accused of anti-Semitism,” Gordon said.

In one recent example, renowned British Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah was branded an anti-Semite for a post on social media equating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, the main architect of the Holocaust.

Abu-Sittah, who spent 43 days tending to the wounded in Gaza City last year, was refused entry into Germany to speak at a conference and forbidden from appearing on video link. Then, last week, he was also barred from entering France, where he was visiting to address the upper house of Parliament.

“The idea that comparing policies carried out by Israel with policies carried out by the Nazi regime is anti-Semitic is crazy,” Gordon said. “What the definition tries to do is to silence legitimate critique of Israel and the genocide it is carrying out in Gaza.”

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

The antisemitism awareness act: what to know.

• Legal Issues
• Race and Ethnicity

Columbia University officials testify before the House Education and Workforce Committee on the university's response to antisemitism on April 17, 2024. (AP)

By 320-91 vote, the House on May 1 passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act . 

The bill came to a vote amid pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses against the Israel-Hamas war that some Jewish students said they found threatening. It produced an unusual lineup of supporters and detractors.

Although the legislation passed easily and with bipartisan support, the votes against it were also bipartisan: 21 Republicans and 70 Democrats voted no. Some Republicans who voted no cited possible threats to Christian beliefs; some Democrats said the measure would chill political speech critical of Israel’s government, rather than Jews as a group.

Here are some questions and answers about the legislation.

The bill requires the federal Education Department to use the definition of antisemitism outlined by the Stockholm-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance when addressing allegations of discrimination in higher education. If discrimination is determined to have occurred, schools would be at risk of losing federal funding. Currently, there is no standard definition for antisemitism in such discrimination cases.

Portions of the alliance’s definition of antisemitism are not especially controversial, including "calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews," "making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews," or denying the Holocaust.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., a leading sponsor of the bill, said the recent campus protests made passing the measure urgent. 

In a statement following passage, Lawler said the bill "is a key step in calling out antisemitism where it is and ensuring antisemitic hate crimes on college campuses are properly investigated and prosecuted." He added, "When people engage in harassment or bullying of Jewish individuals where they justify the killing of Jews or use blood libel or hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government — that is antisemitic. It’s unfortunate that needs to be clarified, but that's why this bill is necessary."

But the bill’s critics said parts of the definition could bleed into more legitimate types of criticism of Israel’s government. Those portions of the definition include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor," "applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation," and "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

In recommending a no vote, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote that the bill is "not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."

This view won backing from some figures from across the ideological spectrum.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told a congressional hearing that "speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination." Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said it was wrong to say that "if you are protesting, or disagree with what (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government are doing in Gaza, you are an antisemite." 

Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., said, "I’m deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism in San Diego and across the country. But I do not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitism. … "I support Israel’s right to exist, but I also know many people who question whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state who are deeply connected to their Judaism."

Nadler, Sanders and Jacobs are all Jewish.

Some legal scholars echoed these criticisms.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who leans libertarian, wrote that the bill "really does risk suppressing not just discriminatory conduct but speech — speech that I generally disagree with, but speech that is fully constitutionally protected."

Florida International University law professor Howard M. Wasserman concurred with Volokh. 

Wasserman told PolitiFact that "the law raises genuine First Amendment concerns to the extent it can or will be used to impose or threaten (Civil Rights Act) Title VI liability on schools for failing to restrict antisemitic but otherwise constitutionally protected speech."

Meanwhile, Kenneth Stern, an attorney who helped write the definition in question, has expressed caution about relying on it for the purpose the bill intends. In 2016, when Congress was considering an earlier version of the bill, Stern testified that the definition was designed to help governments collect antisemitism data and "was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus."  

Timothy Zick, a William & Mary Law School professor, said he’s skeptical that the definition would chill Christian beliefs or criticism of Israel. But he added that it "does not mean it is a good idea to adopt the definition, which was intended to be educational rather than legal."

Some conservatives focused on whether the antisemitism definition could cover elements of the Bible.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posted on X that the bill’s passage "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews."

When conservative commentator Charlie Kirk asked in an X post whether the bill made "parts of the Bible illegal," former Fox News host Tucker Carlson replied , "Yes. The New Testament."

The Anti-Defamation League considers blaming the Jews for killing Jesus a "myth" and said it "has been used to justify violence against Jews for centuries. Historians as well as Christian leaders have agreed that the claim is baseless." After centuries of teaching it, the Catholic Church rejected the belief in 1965, a stance then-Pope Benedict XVI reiterated in 2011 .

Lawler dismissed the concerns of Greene and others, telling CNN they were "inflammatory and it's irrational."

"If you're calling all Jews Christ-killers, then yes, that is antisemitic and everybody understands that," Lawler said. "But if you're referring to the Bible in context, then no, nobody is saying that that is antisemitic."

Gregory P. Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said he sees the concern over the Bible as a stretch.

"My best sense is that the Bible is sufficiently normatively ingrained in Western cultures, especially in the U.S., that no government actor would be at all likely to invoke the (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition against any common usage of the Bible," Magarian told PolitiFact.

The bill has moved to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. "There are objections on both sides," said Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

It’s unclear how binding the bill would be. It is phrased as a "sense of Congress" legislation, which is language typically used for nonbinding, advisory legislation. However, it also says that the Department of Education "shall" take into consideration the definition of antisemitism, which seems to leave no wiggle room.

"I would call it ‘strongly advisory’ — a warning shot across the bow with possible funding cuts to follow if not heeded," said Donald Wolfensberger, a congressional procedure specialist with the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.

"The bill could have directly amended the Civil Rights Act to cement this advisory language into law, but (lawmakers) didn’t dare to, given likely opposition by the Senate, the president and even the courts over First Amendment free speech violation concerns."

Ilya Somin, George Mason University law professor, said the bill’s ultimate impact may be less sweeping than some of its critics suggest, because former then-President Donald Trump incorporated the definition into Title VI by executive order and Biden kept that policy in place. 

Somin added that antisemitic discrimination "is already illegal under Title VI, under longstanding legal precedent. However, the bill does clarify and codify that, and ends any residual uncertainty," including whether being Jewish falls under the category of national origin, race, or a religious group.

PolitiFact Copy Chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report.

RELATED : " Fact-checking claims about college protests over Gaza war "

RELATED : " What we know about the ‘outside agitators’ being blamed for campus protests "

RELATED : " Student protesters are calling for divestment from Israel. Here’s what that means "

Our Sources

Congress.gov, H.R. 6090: Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 , accessed May 9, 2024

House roll call vote on H.R. 6090, May 1, 2024

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, " Working definition of antisemitism ," accessed March 9, 2024

American Civil Liberties Union, " ACLU Urges House of Representatives to Oppose Anti-semitism Awareness Act ," April 26, 2024

Anti-Defamation League, " Myth: Jews Killed Jesus ," accessed May 9, 2024

Marjorie Taylor Greene, post on X , May 1, 2024

Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, posts on X , May 2, 2024

New Yorker, " The Problem with Defining Antisemitism ," March 13, 2024

Associated Press, " House passes bill to expand definition of antisemitism amid growing campus protests over Gaza war ," May 1, 2024

New York Times, " Bill to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses Prompts Backlash From the Right ," May 2, 2024

Agence France-Presse, " US politicians, influencers misrepresent anti-Semitism bill ," May 7, 2024

NBC News, " House passes antisemitism bill with broad bipartisan support amid campus arrests ," May 1, 2024

Eugene Volokh, "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023" (Which Just Passed the House) Could Suppress First-Amendment-Protected Criticism of Israel ," May 3, 2024

The Nation, " The House antisemitism bill is an amalgam of "pointless gestures and posturing" , May 3, 2024

Email interview with Donald Wolfensberger, specialist in congressional procedure with the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, May 8, 2024

Email interview with Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor, May 9, 2025

Email interview with Gregory P. Magarian, law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, May 9, 2025

Email interview with Howard M. Wasserman, Florida International University law professor, May 9, 2024

Email interview with Ilya Somin, George Mason University law professor, May 10, 2024

Email interview with Timothy Zick, William & Mary Law School professor, May 10, 2024

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by louis jacobson.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

House passes bill to expand definition of antisemitism amid growing campus protests over Gaza war

Pro-Palestinian protesters camp out in tents at Columbia University on Saturday, April 27, 2024 in New York. With the death toll mounting in the war in Gaza, protesters nationwide are demanding that schools cut financial ties to Israel and divest from companies they say are enabling the conflict. Some Jewish students say the protests have veered into antisemitism and made them afraid to set foot on campus. (AP Photo)

FILE -President of Columbia University Nemat Shafik testifies before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing on “Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Antisemitism” on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 17, 2024. Columbia University president Nemat (Minouche) Shafik is no stranger to navigating complex international issues, having worked at some of the world’s most prominent global financial institutions.(AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed legislation Wednesday that would establish a broader definition of antisemitism for the Department of Education to enforce anti-discrimination laws, the latest response from lawmakers to a nationwide student protest movement over the Israel-Hamas war.

The proposal, which passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support, would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. It now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.

Action on the bill was just the latest reverberation in Congress from the protest movement that has swept university campuses. Republicans in Congress have denounced the protests and demanded action to stop them, thrusting university officials into the center of the charged political debate over Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war was launched in October, after Hamas staged a deadly terrorist attack against Israeli civilians.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the bill would broaden the legal definition of antisemitism to include the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” Critics say the move would have a chilling effect on free speech throughout college campuses.

“Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said during a hearing Tuesday. “By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.”

Advocates of the proposal say it would provide a much-needed, consistent framework for the Department of Education to police and investigate the rising cases of discrimination and harassment targeted toward Jewish students.

“It is long past time that Congress act to protect Jewish Americans from the scourge of antisemitism on campuses around the country,” Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., said Tuesday.

The expanded definition of antisemitism was first adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and has been embraced by the State Department under the past three presidential administrations, including Joe Biden’s

Previous bipartisan efforts to codify it into law have failed. But the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by Hamas militants in Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza have reignited efforts to target incidents of antisemitism on college campuses.

Separately, Speaker Mike Johnson announced Tuesday that several House committees will be tasked with a wide probe that ultimately threatens to withhold federal research grants and other government support for universities, placing another pressure point on campus administrators who are struggling to manage pro-Palestinian encampments, allegations of discrimination against Jewish students and questions of how they are integrating free speech and campus safety.

The House investigation follows several high-profile hearings that helped precipitate the resignations of presidents at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. And House Republicans promised more scrutiny, saying they were calling on the administrators of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to testify next month.

The House Oversight Committee took it one step further Wednesday, sending a small delegation of Republican members to an encampment at nearby George Washington University in the District of Columbia. GOP lawmakers spent the short visit criticizing the protests and Mayor Muriel Bowser’s refusal to send in the Metropolitan Police Department to disperse the demonstrators.

Bowser on Monday confirmed that the city and the district’s police department had declined the university’s request to intervene. “We did not have any violence to interrupt on the GW campus,” Bowser said, adding that police chief Pamela Smith made the ultimate decision. “This is Washington, D.C., and we are, by design, a place where people come to address the government and their grievances with the government.”

It all comes at a time when college campuses and the federal government are struggling to define exactly where political speech crosses into antisemitism. Dozens of U.S. universities and schools face civil rights investigations by the Education Department over allegations of antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Among the questions campus leaders have struggled to answer is whether phrases like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” should be considered under the definition of antisemitism.

The proposed definition faced strong opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, Jewish organizations as well as free speech advocates.

In a letter sent to lawmakers Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union urged members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment.

“H.R. 6090 is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism,” the letter stated.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the centrist pro-Israel group J Street, said his organization opposes the bipartisan proposal because he sees it as an “unserious” effort led by Republicans “to continually force votes that divide the Democratic caucus on an issue that shouldn’t be turned into a political football.”

Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil, Collin Binkley and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Conversation

Hold Onto Your Hats, America

By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens

Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens are Opinion columnists. They converse every week.

Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. It’s commencement season, though at least a few ceremonies are being canceled on account of all the protests. If you were giving a graduation address, what would you say?

Gail Collins: Well, I’ve given a commencement address or two in my time, but even when things were troubled, I could tell that most of the audience was hoping I’d make them laugh. Just in a way that made them feel it was OK to celebrate their achievements by having a good time with their families and friends.

Bret: Last time I spoke to a graduating class, I tried to compare great arguments to great sex. Not sure how that one went over .

Gail: Wish I had been in the audience for that. Don’t know exactly what I’d say to the current graduates, except that I’d congratulate them for having made it through a time of international turmoil, where both presumptive presidential nominees were almost old enough to be their great-grandfathers.

Bret: I’d urge them to do everything they can to cultivate an inner life, especially since social media is always trying to suck it out of them. Commit great poems to heart, starting with those by Gerard Manley Hopkins and Edna St. Vincent Millay. Recite them aloud on solitary walks. Compose dirty limericks in your head. Read more for pleasure, less for purpose. Read, immediately, Marguerite Yourcenar’s “Memoirs of Hadrian.” Imitate the writers or artists you most admire; you’ll find your own voice and style in all the ways your imitation falls short. Don’t post self-indulgent glam shots of yourself on Instagram, and please stop photographing your damn meals.

Gail: Unless you cooked them — if you’re being creative in the kitchen, it’s like trying to write a poem. Not that I’m any good at either.

Bret: Fair point.

Also: Think of TikTok as your generation’s cocaine and get off it. Work hard on keeping a few good friendships, not gaining thousands of followers. Eschew envy, cynicism and virtue signaling. Ponder the meaning of the word “ hineni. ” Make only enough money so that you don’t have to think about it much. Preserve an independence of mind and spirit, and nurture a contrarian opinion or two, especially if it goes against your own political side.

Gail: Go, Bret …

Bret: Reserve the right to change your mind — and really do it from time to time. Never join a cause if you aren’t fully familiar with the argument against it. Heed the words of Rabbi Hillel: “Where there are no men, be thou a man.” Or woman. Don’t equate success with fame or fame with happiness. Find your core satisfaction in a soul mate, not a career. Laugh more, mostly at yourself.

What have I missed?

Gail: That’s pretty damn good, especially the laughing part. But I’m not going to go so far as to suggest student protesting is a bad or silly idea. Maybe I’d say: Don’t ruin the day for your friends who’ve brought their parents over from Cleveland for one special moment they’ve been looking forward to for ages.

Bret: Because the Browns are punishment enough?

Gail: I probably told you I was a student protester at my college graduation time. My friends and I went to the ceremony, and they let us onstage, but we didn’t get presented diplomas — because we’d gotten an incomplete in Ethics of Journalism.

Not going any further with this story except to say that it was all about free speech and the effort my friends and I made to get the gay poet Allen Ginsberg the right to speak at our Catholic college.

Bret: I long for the days when campus protests were for the Jew.

Gail: Trillion years ago. We thought things were tough then but truly never had a Donald Trump on our horizon.

Any Trumpian thoughts during the Stormy Daniels … storm?

Bret: I’m trying to understand how the question of whether Trump wore a condom in the alleged encounter is relevant to whether and for what purpose he falsified business records. Or how the prosecution thinks that any of this hurts Trump legally or, most important, politically. Like Bill Clinton, he’ll gain sympathy from some voters for being the victim of prosecutorial overreach. He’ll also gain the sneaking admiration of other voters for, uh, having a stormy with Stormy. What do you think?

Gail: Find it hard to believe anybody who bothers to vote has learned anything new about Trump’s character. Although still kinda haunted by the vision of him lying on the bed in his underwear waiting for her to come out of the bathroom. And maybe as the abortion debate goes on and on, it’ll be useful to question whether a guy who has a lot of sex, at least some of which we now hear was unprotected, could not have a strong opinion on the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Bret: True, although I somehow doubt that an unwanted pregnancy was the main risk in that particular encounter.

Gail: Let’s move on to Congress, where I am increasingly unnerved by my appreciation for Speaker Mike Johnson. Truly, Bret, this was not in my plan for 2024.

Bret: It really says something about the state of the G.O.P. that Marjorie Taylor Greene, who should be a Republican embarrassment, has become a power player, while Mike Johnson, who should be a backbencher, is not only the speaker but also the voice of sense and moderation. Relatively speaking. Did I mention that I’m not a fan of the Antisemitism Awareness Act that passed the House the other week? It might surprise a few of our readers.

Gail: Tell why.

Bret: It embraces an expansive definition of antisemitism, known as the I.H.R.A. definition, after the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and effectively criminalizes a wide range of speech that is generally abhorrent but shouldn’t be criminalized. Much as I hate antisemitism, I also don’t think laws against “hate speech,” including against my own group, should be in federal legislation. And I don’t think conservatives who complain about campus speech codes should be in the business of writing those codes themselves.

Gail: I’m in awe of your analysis. Bowing down.

Bret: The best way to defeat antisemitism is first to understand what it is, to teach people why it’s evil and to call it out when it happens. That’s a job for civil society, not the government.

Gail: We’re agreeing a lot today. Let me take a guess I can change the tone by expressing my admiration for President Biden’s top economic adviser, Lael Brainard, who just called for reducing the budget deficit and extending tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families by raising taxes on the wealthy and the most profitable companies.

Bret: Terrible. Tax increases on companies are just passed through to consumers, in the form of higher prices; to employees, in the form of cost cutting or less hiring; and to shareholders, including a lot of people who hold stock through retirement accounts, in the form of lower profitability. And raising taxes on the so-called wealthy usually ends up thwacking the upper-middle class, including those who live in high-tax states, while the superrich always have the means to hire fancy accountants and lawyers to shield their assets in trusts, offshore accounts and other complex vehicles.

Gail: The government has a tad of cash itself, and an administration with the right priorities can fight to get those tax shields down. Won’t always work, of course, but it would push us in the right direction.

Bret: But wait, there’s worse! Every time Democrats raise taxes, they get clobbered at the polls — as they did in the 1994 midterms after Bill Clinton raised taxes in his first year and again in 2014 after Barack Obama did in his fifth. I know “taxing the rich” polls well, but a lot of voters fear those higher tax rates may soon fall on them.

Gail: Presidents generally get clobbered in the Congressional votes after the election. The fact that Biden fared pretty well, historically speaking, does show he knows a lot more about sending a message voters appreciate, including matters of economic fairness.

Although before you leap at it, I’ll admit the Democrats’ relative success had a whole lot to do with abortion rights rather than the economy. Abortion is an issue Biden’s been very consistent on despite his own private religious feelings. While Trump — yipes, where’s he at this week? This afternoon?

Bret: If Biden winds up winning in November — and I couldn’t be more anxious about his chances — the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, along with the awful restrictions so many conservative states have put on abortion rights, will have had a lot to do with it. Which would be … a pleasing irony.

Gail: I’ll take any irony that keeps us Trump-free.

Bret: Gail, before we go, I have to recommend Robert McFadden’s fantastic obituary for Mary Wells Lawrence (nee Mary Georgene Berg), the advertising genius who came up with the I ❤️ NY campaign and was the first woman to own a major ad agency. I especially loved this story:

In 1966, having several high-profile campaigns under her belt and feeling entitled, Ms. Wells Lawrence asked for the presidency of Tinker & Partners. Her boss, Marion Harper Jr., the president and chairman of Interpublic, told her that he would give her presidential authority but not the title — a woman, he said, could not win acceptance as president. It was her moment of truth. “He could see that I was feeling a red rage,” she told The Times in 2012. “And he said, ‘You wouldn’t want to ruin something you built.’ And at that point I just walked out the door. It wasn’t as though I wanted to be Betty Friedan. I just wanted my own agency.”

How marvelous. It’s another case of the right kind of chutzpah defeating the wrong kind of chutzpah.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Gail Collins is a Times Opinion columnist focusing on domestic politics. @ GailCollins • Facebook

Bret Stephens is an Opinion columnist for The Times, writing about foreign policy, domestic politics and cultural issues. Facebook

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Campus protests over the Gaza war

House passes bill aimed to combat antisemitism amid college unrest.

Barbara Sprunt

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson visited Columbia University on April 24 to meet with Jewish students and make remarks about concerns that the ongoing demonstrations have become antisemitic. Alex Kent/Getty Images hide caption

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson visited Columbia University on April 24 to meet with Jewish students and make remarks about concerns that the ongoing demonstrations have become antisemitic.

The House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday aimed at addressing reports of rising antisemitism on college campuses, where activists angered by Israel's war against Hamas have been protesting for months and more recently set up encampments on campus grounds .

The Antisemitism Awareness Act would see the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws regarding education programs.

The bill passed with a 320-91 vote. Seventy Democrats and 21 Republicans voted against the measure.

The international group defines antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews" and gives examples of the definition's application, which includes "accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagine wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group" and making " dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective."

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., introduced the legislation.

"Right now, without a clear definition of antisemitism, the Department of Education and college administrators are having trouble discerning whether conduct is antisemitic or not, whether the activity we're seeing crosses the line into antisemitic harassment," he said on the House floor before passage.

The bill goes further than an executive order former President Donald Trump signed in 2019 . Opponents argue the measure could restrict free speech.

"This definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance includes 'contemporary examples of antisemitism'," said Rep. Jerry Nadler in a speech on the House floor ahead of the vote. "The problem is that these examples may include protected speech in some context, particularly with respect to criticism of the state of Israel."

Fellow New York Democrat Rep. Ritchie Torres , one of the 15 Democratic cosponsors of the bill, told NPR he finds that argument unconvincing.

"There's a false narrative that the definition censors criticism of the Israeli government. I consider it complete nonsense," Torres said in an interview with NPR.

"If you can figure out how to critique the policies and practices of the Israeli government without calling for the destruction of Israel itself, then no reasonable person would ever accuse you of antisemitism," he added.

Issue should 'transcend partisan politics'

While members of both parties have criticized reports of antisemitism at the protests, Republicans have made the issue a central political focus.

House Speaker Mike Johnson made a rare visit last week to Columbia University, where demonstrators were demanding the school divest from companies that operate in Israel. Johnson and a handful of GOP lawmakers met with a group of Jewish students.

"They are really concerned that their voices are not being heard when they may complain about being assaulted, being spit on, being told that all Jews should die — and they are not getting any response from the individuals who are literally being paid to protect them," Rep. Anthony D'Esposito, R-N.Y., told NPR of the meeting.

On Tuesday, Johnson held a press conference focused on antisemitism with a group of House Republicans at the U.S. Capitol.

"Antisemitism is a virus and it will spread if it's not stamped out," Johnson said. "We have to act, and House Republicans will speak to this fateful moment with moral clarity."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the House progressive caucus, says Republicans are playing politics.

"Many of these Republicans didn't say a word when Trump and others in Charlottesville and other places were saying truly antisemitic things. But all of a sudden now they want to bring forward bills that divide Democrats and weaponize this," she said.

Torres said he wished Johnson had done a bipartisan event with House Democrats to "present a united front."

"You know, it's impossible to take the politics out of politics, but the fight against all forms of hate, including antisemitism, should transcend partisan politics," he said.

Student protestors chant near an entrance to Columbia University on April 30. Columbia University has restricted access to the school's campus to students residing in residential buildings on campus and employees who provide essential services to campus buildings after protestors took over Hamilton Hall overnight. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images hide caption

Student protestors chant near an entrance to Columbia University on April 30. Columbia University has restricted access to the school's campus to students residing in residential buildings on campus and employees who provide essential services to campus buildings after protestors took over Hamilton Hall overnight.

Jewish students speak about feeling harassed

Hear from students who met with speaker johnson.

There was increased urgency to move legislation to the floor after lawmakers started hearing stories of Jewish students feeling unwelcome on campuses.

Eliana Goldin, a junior at Columbia and the Jewish Theological Seminary, said the escalation of protests on and around her campus have made her feel unsafe.

"I know many, many people who have been harassed because they wear a Jewish star necklace," Goldin told NPR. Goldin was one student who received a message from Rabbi Elie Buechler of Columbia a week ago.

"The events of the last few days...have made it clear that Columbia University's Public Safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students' safety in the face of extreme antisemitism and anarchy," the message read. "It deeply pains me to say that I would strongly recommend you return home as soon as possible and remain home until the reality in and around campus has dramatically improved."

Demonstrators say their protest is peaceful and that some of the antisemitic events that have garnered national attention have come from people outside of the university.

Goldin said she was part of an interaction that got a lot of online attention of someone yelling at her and others to "go back to Poland." She said she was disappointed in the reaction from the broader Columbia community, even though the person was likely not a student.

"I do think if someone were to say, 'go back to Africa' to a Black student, it would one, be abhorrent," Goldin said. "And correctly, the entire Columbia student body would feel outraged at that, and we would all be able to rally around it. But of course, when someone says 'go back to Poland' to a Jew, we don't feel the same outrage and the same unity against that."

Torres said lawmakers should listen to students like Goldin.

"If there are Black students, who claim to experience racism, we rightly respect their experiences. The same would be true of Latino students, the same would be true of Asian students," he said. "If there are Jewish students who are telling us that they do not feel safe, why are we questioning the validity of their experiences? Why are we not affording them the sensitivity that we would have for every other group?"

Columbia University did not respond to NPR about questions about their handling of the protests.

A demonstrator breaks the windows of the front door of the building in order to secure a chain around it to prevent authorities from entering as demonstrators from the pro-Palestine encampment barricade themselves inside Hamilton Hall, an academic building at Columbia University, on April 30. Alex Kent/Getty Images hide caption

A demonstrator breaks the windows of the front door of the building in order to secure a chain around it to prevent authorities from entering as demonstrators from the pro-Palestine encampment barricade themselves inside Hamilton Hall, an academic building at Columbia University, on April 30.

'It just really kind of erodes the soul'

Xavier Westergaard, a Ph.D. student at Columbia, attended the meeting between the House GOP delegation and Jewish students.

"The mood in the room was relief that someone so high up in the government made this a priority," he said, referring to Johnson.

"Jewish students, including myself, have been the victims of physical violence and intimidation. This goes from shoving, spitting, being told to go back to Europe," he said. "It just really kind of erodes the soul if you hear it too many times."

He added: "And this is not just happening outside the gates, on the sidewalk where anyone from anywhere can come and demonstrate. We do have the First Amendment in this country. This was actually on campus. The university has responsibilities to protect their students from harassment on the basis of religion or creed or national origin."

A consistent refrain among protesters is that criticizing the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to antisemitism.

Westergaard agrees, but says that's not what he's experiencing.

"I've heard, 'We want all Zionists off campus.' I've heard 'death to the Zionist state, death to Zionists.' And as a Jew, I feel that Zionism and Judaism can be teased apart with a tremendous amount of care and compassion and knowledge," he said. "But it's also just a dog whistle that people use when they're talking about the Jews."

Juliana Castillo, an undergraduate, was also at the meeting with Johnson. She said calls for the safety of students doesn't just include physical well-being.

"There are things like intimidation, like feeling uncomfortable being openly Jewish or taking a direct route across campus," she said. "It doesn't always manifest as a lack of physical safety. Sometimes it manifests as being unwelcome in a class or feeling like people's viewpoints or perspectives are not respected."

She said even isolated incidents of antisemitism that get circulated widely online have a "creeping impact on people."

"Just knowing that something has happened to your friends, or to people you know in a place you're familiar with, makes it difficult to have a sense that this is your campus," she said. "These things do build up."

Bipartisan push on more bills to counter antisemitism

Lawmakers say this bill is just one step — and that there's more action the chamber should take to combat antisemitism.

Torres and Lawler have introduced another bill that would place a monitor on a campus to report back to the federal government on whether the university is complying with Title VI , which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in places like colleges that receive federal funding.

"A law is only as effective as its enforcement, and the purpose here is to provide an enforcement mechanism where none exist," Torres said. "And I want to be clear: the legislation would empower the federal Department of Education not to impose a monitor on every college or university, only when there's reason to suspect a violation of Title VI."

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is urging Johnson to bring the bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act to the floor.

"The effort to crush antisemitism and hatred in any form is not a Democratic or Republican issue" said Jeffries in a statement.

Letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on the Bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act. pic.twitter.com/z3weUD54zm — Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) April 29, 2024

The bill would establish a senior official in the Department of Education to monitor for antisemitism on college campuses and create a national coordinator in the White House to oversee a new interagency task force to counter antisemitism.

"We have negotiated that bill for nine months. It is bipartisan. It's bicameral," said North Carolina Democrat Kathy Manning, who co-chairs the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism.

Manning was part of a trio of House Democrats who visited Columbia University last week to hear from Jewish students.

Manning points to a study from the American Jewish Committee that found that 46% of American Jews since October 7 say they have altered their behavior out of fear of antisemitism .

"I find that deeply disturbing, that in the United States of America, people are now afraid to be recognized in public as being Jewish," Manning said.