Introduction
The innate goal of all living things beyond survival and procreation lies in pursuing happiness (Diener, 2000). In our universal pursuit of happiness, we have defined parameters and ideals to protect and preserve, such as our natural rights as human beings. The government’s primary function is to protect these fundamental ideals to promote the well-being and happiness of its citizens (Winterer, 2016). To this end, some psychologists argue that measuring the happiness of citizens is a better alternative to determine the success of a policy or nation than using factors such as Gross Domestic Product and cost-benefit analysis (Stiglitz, et al., 2011). Beyond its applicability in policymaking, a way to accurately measure happiness has enormous value in assessing group dynamics in any organized setting, from corporations and schools to personal groups such as families.
In this paper, I will show that the concept of happiness is prone to personal, cultural, and social influences that make quantifying it intertemporally, interpersonally, interculturally, and internationally nearly impossible.
Definition of Happiness
The concept of happiness has existed for millennia and has been observed in species ranging from chimpanzees to dogs to babies (Webb, et al., 2019). Nevertheless, because of its intangible and subjective nature, universally defining it has been the subject of numerous debates.
Aristotle wrote about eudaimonia, a state of well-being that comes from living virtuously and realizing one’s true potential (Kesebir and Deiner, 2009). Aristotle defined happiness to objective standards, characterizing it as an end goal irrespective of short-lived emotional states (Kraut, 2001). This concept conflicts with Jeremy Bentham’s hedonic view of utilitarianism, which measures “utility” based on the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain (Crimmins, 2015). Bentham’s approach has been generally accepted by modern economists, who appeal to utilitarian principles when judging the ethics of policies (Arrow, 1973). A third approach defines happiness in terms of various sectors that promote happiness. The World Happiness Report adopts this approach by measuring a nation’s happiness through several factors, such as income and health (Helliwell, et al., 2023).
All the attempts to define happiness reveal the difficulty in defining happiness into a concrete, measurable set of criteria. Indeed, all the definitions of happiness are dependent on yet another subjective concept: Aristotle’s to “excellence or virtue,” Jeremy Bentham’s to “pleasure and pain,” and the World Happiness Report to sectors that “promote happiness.” (Aristotle, 1893; Bentham, 2018; Helliwell, et al., 2023).
The apparent challenges of defining happiness naturally lead to difficulty measuring happiness across individuals, cultures, times, and social dynamics.
Methods for Measuring Happiness
Before assessing the current popular methods of measuring happiness, it’s important to note what “measurement” implies. Measurement of two objects for a specific quality means there can be an absolute comparison for that quality. For instance, when comparing the volume of a cup to a bucket, by using liters, one can determine which holds more and by how much. Furthermore, it’s even possible to compare the volume of the bucket to that of another bucket in the distant future. Measurement, then, has two prerequisites: 1. universal unit for comparison and 2. perpetuity. Although it’s evident that happiness is neither a bucket nor any physical object, establishing the concept of measurement in these terms is necessary as it allows for a meaningful objective.
Currently, the predominant approach for assessing happiness is conducting self-surveys (Holder, 2017). One such survey is the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). This survey is designed to assess the presence and intensity of positive and negative emotions in individuals. The respondents are presented with twenty positive or negative emotions, such as “distressed” and “excited.” Participants rate each emotion from 1 to 5, ranging from “very slightly or not at all” to “extremely,” respectively. The sums of ten positive and negative emotions are compared with a higher positive score indicating higher frequencies of positive emotions and vice versa (Sutton, 2019).
To test the reliability of the PANAS questionnaire, the creators, David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen, asked their subjects to rate the degree to which they had experienced each emotional state during a specific time frame (“moment,” “past few days,” “general,” etc.). PANAS displays strong internal reliability over any period of time (Watson, et al., 1988).
Another generally accepted survey is The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Participants respond to five statements using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The sum of the ratings indicates the level of life satisfaction. This method was found to have strong internal reliability and test-retest correlation (Diener, et al., 1985).
Researchers have credited self-surveys for their reliability on the grounds that life satisfaction measures remain robust over time or that measurement changes occur only when significant life changes occur, irrespective of temporary mood shifts and trivial events (Allen, 2017). However, it’s easy to understand why the self-survey-oriented test results resist change over time as the test is solely driven by the single individual taking it. Assuming the individual has not changed his or her general perspectives on life, the numerical measurements can be considered standardized across multiple administrations of the tests. Paradoxically, the reliability of the tests for individual assessment renders them ineffective for interpersonal comparisons as it is impossible to decipher the levels of subjectivity each test taker has for any of the questions. As the PANAS and the Satisfaction With Life Scale are unreliable in comparing happiness levels, they fail to satisfy the criteria for accurate measurement.
Furthermore, there are problems with applying quantitative terms to qualitative concepts on a scale. Numerical scaling gives the impression that happiness can be evenly divided on the emotional spectrum. For example, if 1 represents sad, 2 represents mildly happy, and 3 represents happy, the scale assumes equal weight between the emotions. Essentially, if this scale was placed on an emotional spectrum, the distances between each “level” would be equal, and an individual would need to traverse the same “emotional distance” every time (White, 2018). This ignores the possibility that a “sad” person becoming “mildly happy” may be more difficult than going from “mildly happy” to “happy.” To further complicate matters, it is impossible to standardize the numerical representation of emotions across all test-takers. Therefore, applying a strict numerical scale on subjective feelings results in faulty interpretations.
Additionally, due to the subjective nature of self-surveys, how one interprets the lower bound and the upper bound can affect the meaning of the results. Take Cantril’s Ladder of Life by the Gallup World Poll, for example. The Gallup World Poll annually provides the World Happiness Report with life evaluation data to measure subjective well-being (“World Happiness Report,” 2023). The Cantril ladder is a ranking system where respondents rate their current life situations on a scale from 0 to 10, with the top representing the best possible life and the bottom representing the worst possible life (“Understanding How Gallup,” 2009). How respondents interpret “best possible life” and “worst possible life” is subjective. If a respondent chooses 0, or "worst possible life," does this mean that he or she cannot imagine a worse life, or does it mean the respondent is experiencing the worst situation given a limited context? Each respondent may understand the meaning of the lower and upper bounds differently, making it unreliable to standardize for comparison between people in groups.
It has been argued that a binary survey system can overcome the deficiencies of a numerical scale. Aside from life evaluations, the World Happiness Report measures subjective well-being through a binary survey system. For example, to measure social support, the Gallup World Poll asks, “If you were in trouble, do you have relatives or friends you can count on to help you whenever you need them, or not?” Respondents answer either 0 (no) or 1 (yes) (Helliwell, et al., 2023). Although this method addresses the mathematical conundrum previously mentioned, the response options for the binary survey are too extreme. The binary survey oversimplifies complex situations and places equal weight across all parameters ranging from social support to perceived levels of government corruption. Lastly, the binary survey cannot completely circumvent the subjectivity. This survey is also subjective and prone to be influenced by cultural or social climates. For example, responses to questions such as “Is corruption widespread throughout the government” are more prone to current political events and popular culture.
Challenges of Comparing Happiness Measurements
An argument can be made that as self-surveys are effective means of tracking individual happiness levels, they can also be utilized to reflect the holistic changes in happiness within a larger population. Theoretically, this position has merit, and administering self-surveys to the same individuals over a set amount of time and comparing the results can effectively show general changes to overall happiness in a local population. Nonetheless, such a method will still fail to meet the standards of universal measurement as it cannot be used for accurate intercultural and intertemporal comparisons.
Comparing self-survey results is virtually impossible across cultures and socioeconomic classes. Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama explain that “the communities, societies, and cultural contexts in which people participate provide the interpretive frameworks by which people make sense and organize their actions” (Markus and Kitayama, 1998).
The prototypical Western view of happiness heavily emphasizes individual pursuits, self-autonomy, and fostering the unique potential within every person. This culture of individualism highlights personal freedom and free will. A prime example can be found in the United States, which is characterized by democratic principles, a constitution that protects individual rights, and a custom that rewards achievement (Lu and Gilmour, 2004). Individuals in a Western culture view themselves as what Markus and Kitayama call the "independent self," who are autonomous and unbounded to pursue happiness in a society with limitless opportunities (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
By contrast, the Eastern view of happiness is defined by membership. This “interdependent self” defines essential aspects of one’s identity based on social connections and relationships (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Asian cultures are group-oriented and reward those who fulfill their role obligations in group settings. This relational way of existence encourages individuals to seek ways to integrate with others and nurture interpersonal connections.
Furthermore, there are distinctions between societies that play a crucial role in how individuals perceive happiness. Researchers Luo Lu and Robin Gilmour reveal that Asian cultures focus less on pursuing happiness as a fundamental goal (Lu and Gilmour, 2004). In a study, Chinese university students were asked to rate how vital “happiness, life satisfaction, joy, and contentment” were to them. The results revealed that the Chinese respondents thought about happiness less often and assigned less importance than American students (Diener, et al., 1995).
In another study regarding Chinese and American conceptions of happiness, 142 undergraduate Chinese students answered the question, “What is happiness?” When analyzing “happiness as of self-autonomy,” Lu found that for Americans, self-autonomy was equivalent to exercising mastery over one’s future. This corresponds with the Western emphasis on personal freedoms to pursue. However, Chinese students revealed that embracing self-autonomy necessitates adherence to a moral framework, implying that absolute freedom does not exist (Lu and Gilmour, 2004).
Conclusion
Happiness has always been an integral part of human existence. Nonetheless, because of the diverse and fickle nature of life, every individual, culture, and time period defines it differently. Although we have come to some agreement as to possible factors that govern happiness, as even these factors aren’t independent of cultural and social influences, the attempt to find a robust method of universal measurement of happiness for intertemporal, interpersonal, intercultural, and international comparison will likely remain futile.
Works Cited
Allen, James B., and Allen, James E.. The Psychology of Happiness in the Modern World: A Social Psychological Approach. Switzerland, Springer Publishing Company.
Aristotle, Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Company, 1893.
Bentham, Jeremy, et al. “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.” Econlib, 9 July 2018, www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML.html?chapter_num=1#book-reader.
Arrow, Kenneth J. The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 70, no. 9, 1973, pp. 245–63. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2025006. Accessed 20 June 2023.
Crimmins, James E. “Jeremy Bentham.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 Dec. 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/#PaiPle.
“Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript. Accessed 22 June 2023.
Diener, Ed, Eunkook M. Suh, et al. “National Differences in Reported Subjective Well-Being: Why Do They Occur?” Social Indicator Research, vol. 34, no. 1, 1995, pp. 7–32.
Diener, Ed, Robert A Emmons, et al. “The Satisfaction With Life Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 1985, pp. 71–75.
Diener, Ed. “Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index.” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, 2000, pp. 34–43, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.34.
Diener, Ed, et al. ‘The Evolving Concept of Subjective Well-Being: The Multifaceted Nature of Happiness’. Assessing Well-Being, Springer Netherlands, 2009, pp. 67–100, https://doi.org10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_4.
Helliwell, John F., et al. World Happiness Report 2023, happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2023/WHR+23.pdf.
Helliwell, John F., Richard Layard, Jeffrey D. Sachs, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, et al. “World Happiness Report 2023.” The World Happiness Report, 20 Mar. 2023, worldhappiness.report/ed/2023/.
Jeremy Sutton, Ph.D. “6 Happiness Tests & Scales to Measure Happiness.” PositivePsychology.Com, 27 Mar. 2023, positivepsychology.com/measure-happiness-tests-surveys/.
Kesebir, Pelin, and Ed Diener. ‘In Pursuit of Happiness: Empirical Answers to Philosophical Questions’. Social Indicators Research Series, Springer Netherlands, 2009, pp. 59–74, https://doi.org10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6_3.
Kraut, Richard. “Aristotle’s Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2 July 2022, plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/.
Lu, Luo, and Robin Gilmour. “Culture and Conceptions of Happiness: Individual Oriented and Social Oriented SWB.” Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 5, 2004, pp. 269–291.
Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review, vol. 98, 1991, pp. 224–253.
Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. “The Cultural Psychology of Personality.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 29, 1998.
“Measuring Happiness: How Can We Measure It?” Psychology Today, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-doctor/201705/measuring-happiness-how-can-we-measure-it. Accessed 20 June 2023.
Stiglitz, Joseph E., et al. Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. Bookwell Publications, 2011.
“Understanding How Gallup Uses the Cantril Scale.” Gallup.Com, 8 Apr. 2021, news.gallup.com/poll/122453/understanding-gallup-uses-cantril-scale.aspx.
Watson, D et al. “Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales.” Journal of personality and social psychology vol. 54,6 (1988): 1063-70. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
Webb, Laura E et al. “What is animal happiness?.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences vol. 1438,1 (2019): 62-76. doi:10.1111/nyas.13983
White, Mark D. “The Problems with Measuring and Using Happiness for Policy Purposes.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3191385.
Winterer, Caroline. American Enlightenments: Pursuing Happiness in the Age of Reason. Yale University Press, 2018.
“World Happiness Report.” Home, worldhappiness.report/about/. Accessed 22 June 2023.
Comments