Happy Psychology

Can Positive Psychology Make Us Happier?

The first portion of this article, the ‘yes’ portion, argues that positive psychology can make us happier. Julia Boehm and Sonja Lyubomirsky are the two who wrote this section of the article. They believe that every individual has their own level of happiness. They also believe that after every event, whether it is positive or negative, a person will revert back to their baseline level of happiness. The article also states that a person’s level of happiness has very little to do with their life and lifestyle, as most people would believe. This level is, however, based more on one’s genetic makeup. This fact means that happy people and unhappy people are likely to perceive the world differently. For example, happy people are more likely to view the world in a more positive light, while unhappy people view the world, and interpret events in a more negative way. Boehm and Lyubomirsky conducted many experiments in order to prove their argument. One experiment involved the subject and an accessory, who were supposed to solve anagrams. When the accessory was slower at solving these than the subject, both the unhappy and happy subjects responded positively because their confidence was boosted. However, when the accessory was quicker than the subject, the responses changed. The happy people did not change their opinion on their own skills, but the unhappy people discredited their skills. Many other experiments similar to this one were conducted, and the results of all of the experiments were similar. The happy people viewed their experience in a positive way, while the unhappy people did not. When happiness interventions were instilled, the entire group of subjects showed an increase in happiness compared to those who received no treatment. What separated the two groups was their reaction when the treatments stopped. When this happened, the happy people continued to be happy. The unhappy group, however, reverted back to their baseline of happiness. In contrast to the first portion of this article, the ‘no’ section argues the opposite of the ‘yes’ one. The authors of this section, Laurel C. Newman and Randy J. Larsen, state that psychologists should be take caution when they announce to the public that they have a way to make people happier. They do not have much research to state that we cannot control people’s happiness, but they give reasons as to why we should not share ways to make people happier. One reason is based off a study from 1996. David Lykken and Auke Tellegen conducted the research on identical twins to find out how much of their happiness was due to genetics; they called this heritability. What they found was that the twins did have a lot of similarities in happiness, but they concluded that only 50% of that happiness was due to genetics. While this is a large portion of what makes up one’s happiness, Newman and Larsen believe that because there is still 50% that is out of our control, we cannot claim to be able to change one’s happiness. The second reason deals with the hedonic treadmill. The hedonic treadmill is a study of people who have gone through periods of great fortune and ones of great tragedy. What this study found was whether the experience was a fortune or a tragedy, people still returned to their baseline of happiness within one year. This shows that no matter what happens to a person, they will just revert to their normal level of happiness. Thirdly, Newman and Larsen state that Lyubomirsky misuses estimates on the level of control genes have on our happiness. They believe that her statistics and research is wrong. For example, they do not believe that it is accurate to state that 40% of our happiness is within our control. Should this actually be true, they do not believe that you would be able to control it entirely because there are too many other factors that could affect happiness. Newman and Larsen also do not believe that Lyubomirsky’s evidence on happiness is up to par and reliable. I personally agree more with the ‘yes’ portion of this article. I agree with this part mainly because they show more convincing proof than that of the ‘no’ portion, though both make good points. I also agree with the section because of my own personal experiences. The main reason I agree with the ‘yes’ portion is because of the amount of research they have done. There were so many studies that were done that really impressed me. The one study I found the most interesting dealt with the happiness interventions. I had never thought of how I would respond to certain situations based on my happiness, but now that I have read this study and related it to my own personal experiences, it makes sense. There have been several times when I have personally witnesses people in the same situation, respond completely differently. One example is in gym class, where when playing a sport, some people on the losing team are still happy and show excitement towards the game, while others get angry at the fact that they are losing. However, I had never associated this with the possibility that those individuals had different levels of happiness. Another reason that I agree more with the ‘yes’ argument, is the study on certain actions such as charitable acts and journal writing. I have noticed that when I volunteer or help others, I feel happier about myself and my environment. I have also noticed this in others who continually do good deeds, as well as write in a journal. I have also noticed that those who don’t take part in these acts do not seem as happy. I do not think that the ‘no’ argument, though it had some good points, had enough evidence to convince me that we cannot change our happiness. To me, it seemed that that section only tried to discredit the other. The ‘yes’ section showed that they put a lot of work into their research, and I believe they were successful in supporting their hypothesis. I believe that we can all make changes to our lives in order to be happier, and a lot of those ways were in the ‘yes’ section, including doing good deeds and showing gratefulness.