Psychology Today Blogs - Sonja Lyubomirsky

Can You Be Too Happy-Go-Lucky?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:29:37 -0700

I was recently invited to a screening of a film about happiness. The film is called Happy Go Lucky (to be released in LA and NYC on Oct 10 and more widely 1-2 weeks later) and the director is Mike Leigh. (In case some readers don't know him, Leigh has made some wonderful films in the UK, including Vera Drake and Secrets & Lies.)

I’m no movie critic, but I can say this: Happy Go Lucky was really intriguing. At first, you imagine you might hate it, but then it grows on you. It's about a woman – played to great effect by Sally Hawkins – who seems like she's way too happy. She’s relentlessly upbeat. She sees everything and explains everyday events in a positive, optimistic, and charitable way. (This gets downright dangerous sometimes, when she approaches and empathizes with a mentally ill homeless man, who may be violent.) And she appears invulnerable to nasty people, a characteristic that serves well as fodder for some terrific and nerve-wracking scenes with her driving instructor.

Initially, I was convinced that the central character is just nuts (excuse the non-technical term) and totally dysfunctional, but then I realized that I may have been wrong all along. The movie really made me think – in fact, so much that I couldn’t get it out of my head.

One of the questions that Happy Go Lucky brought to mind is whether people can indeed be excessively happy, dysfunctionally happy.

Psychologists argue that many, if not all, human traits have optimal levels. With regard to the trait of happiness, studies show that people who report themselves as happy at age 18 will obtain more years of education and earn higher incomes in their 30s than will their less happy 18-year-old peers, but that those who score above the 90th percentile in happiness will actually do somewhat worse. Interestingly, however, the pitfalls of being “too happy” are not observed in the domain of social relationships. It has been known for a long time that happier people are more likely to get married, to have fulfilling relationships, to boast more friends, and to have higher-quality social support. But if you rate yourself a 10 on a 10-point scale of happiness, you are still slightly better off in your romantic and social life than someone who is happy but not super-happy. So, once a person is already moderately happy, becoming even happier may have costs in some domains, but not in others.

So, where does that leave our heroine of Happy Go Lucky? You’ll have to see the movie to find out.

How To Remain Happy When the Financial World Crumbles

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:21:42 -0700

I’ve had a lot to worry about lately. On my personal list: Watching my mutual funds melt down, the increasing hassle (not to mention price) of my commute, my child’s weep downs, how to super-rush a visa to Brazil amid interestingly-timed “technical difficulties” at the Consulate, and (don’t even let me go there) Sarah Palin.

Sometimes I think our country has gone nuts. We have collapsing financial markets, unprecedented housing foreclosures, $4 gas, and an emperor without any clothes on perambulating in the of an incredibly critical presidential election. But despite everything, many people (myself included) have a remarkable capacity to maintain optimism and confidence and even some cheer – about ourselves and the world around us.

The label for the process by which we manage to survive – and even thrive – in the face of stress, trauma, and adversity is coping. It’s how we assuage the hurt, anxiety, or suffering caused by a negative event. There’s a massive – and I mean massive – literature in psychology on coping, but I will tell you about my two favorite findings regarding successful coping.

First, successful coping involves construing some kind of benefit in the ordeal or trauma.

I know that might sound trivializing, but researchers have found that the most well-adjusted people are able to perceive some value or gain (a silver lining, if you will) in the loss or negative life event – for example, a change in life perspective, a feeling that their life has greater worth, or a sense of personal growth.

For example, a professor I know lost his dearest friend and closest collaborator, a brilliant scientist, abruptly and cruelly, to cancer, cutting short a 27-year-long magical partnership. “I am the luckiest man I know, “ he said at a dinner honoring his friend, “I wish on each of you the marvelous collaboration that I had.”

A classic study by UCLA Professor Shelley Taylor found that women coping with breast cancer have amazing strength. When interviewed, many of these women spoke of their illness as a wake-up call – something that galvanized them to reorder their priorities and to recognize what was truly important in life (a common insight was family over work), of deciding to devote more time to their closest relationships and to spend less time on things like housework.

Some people who have experienced hardships and losses claim that their relationships have benefited – that their friendships and intimate partnerships are more profound, significant, and meaningful after the trauma than before. Still others, researchers find, assert that they have grown enormously in the wake of their traumatic experience, discovering a maturity and strength of character that they didn’t know they possessed. And many experience a newfound appreciation of the preciousness and goodness of life. For example, a survivor of a harrowing plane crash described her experience afterward: “When I got home, the sky was brighter. I paid attention to the texture of sidewalks. It was like being in a movie.”

Second, successful coping fosters personal growth and even transformation.

Researchers have also accumulated evidence supporting Friedrich Nietzsche’s familiar exhortation, “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” It turns out that the experience of pain, loss, and trauma can make us stronger or, at least, lead us to believe that we are stronger and more resourceful than we had thought.

Some psychologists argue that finding benefit in a trauma represents a true personal transformation. When you consider it, a major loss can launch a person into new roles and novel situations. A new widow, who has always conceived of herself as a “wife” and has been greatly dependent on her husband – financially, emotionally, and socially – may be abruptly catapulted to learn numerous assorted skills. She may be startled to find herself rising to the occasion and accomplishing things that she never judged herself capable of doing: selling her house, playing ball with her son, calculating her taxes, or attending a party all by herself, This can certainly lead to new self-views, enhanced self-esteem, and possibly even growth.

Indeed, trauma survivors often report transformative experiences. Some gain renewed confidence in their ability to endure and prevail. Others experience improved relationships – for example, discovering who their true friends are and whom they can really count on. Others still begin to feel more comfortable with intimacy and acquire a heightened sense of compassion for others who suffer. Finally, others seem to develop a deeper, more sophisticated, and more satisfying philosophy of life.

And here is where I get to bring up my favorite figure of all time. As you will see, it illustrates three potential paths that we can take in the face of a major challenge: A) survival, B) recovery, or C) thriving. Survival essentially translates to a permanent impairment of functioning. This path (see Path A line below) shows a person who is merely surviving following a trauma, someone who may have lost much happiness and desire to enjoy love, work, or play. Recovery (Path B) describes a person who suffers in the aftermath of a trauma, perhaps losing the capacity to work productively or have satisfying relationships for a period of time, but who eventually returns to his original state. Finally, thriving (Path C) involves someone who also suffers in the immediate aftermath but who ultimately not only returns to her original state but rises above it! This person has experienced a transformation.

How can we thrive – let alone recover or survive – in the face of the severe hardships and stresses that life not infrequently throws us? How do we remain upbeat in the face of gloomy television news night after night? It is not easy. For some people and in some situations, it may not even be possible. But for most of us, it’s within reach.

Can Anything in Life Ever Surpass Winning 14 Gold Medals?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:26:53 -0700

As I was watching Michael Phelps receive his 14th gold medal – what a week! – this is what I was thinking: “How could anything in this 23-year old swimmer’s life ever top this?” And: “After he comes down from the high, will he ultimately end up less happy than the rest of us mere mortals?”

This may be a downer question, but it’s not a glib one. Research suggests that an extremely positive event (or “peak experience”) can skew our distribution of life events in such a way that makes everything that follows it pale by comparison. A friend of mine had such a tremendously positive experience once (I won’t say what it was but it didn’t involve drugs) that for many weeks afterwards, everything else that he usually really enjoyed (eating sushi, playing frisbee with friends, watching Monday night football) just didn’t seem so great anymore. He eventually got over it and reverted back to his old self, but what if he had been labeled the greatest Olympic athlete of all time? Could one derive the same pleasure in the nightly news or eating crackers or taking a walk around the neighborhood after that?

In my own research, I have recently become intrigued with the process of how people react to and adapt to positive experiences. The sad conclusion, according to every study that I’ve read, is that human beings adapt to all things positive! We move into a spanking mansion, we win accolades and awards, we meet a handsome stranger, we get wrinkle-smoothing plastic surgery, and it feels terrific for a while. A happiness boost for sure. And then, over time – sometimes slowly, sometimes very rapidly – we return to our original level of well-being.

But the problem is that really, really positive experiences raise the bar for all subsequent experiences. They set a new standard of comparison. After you dine at the French Laundry, every subsequent meal is not as good. After you win the lottery, according to a University of Michigan study, little ordinary, mundane good things in your life, like having lunch with a friend or receiving a gift, don’t carry the same cachet. After you sleep with the person of your dreams…you get the idea.

But all is not hopeless for Michael. My research shows that people can actively and effortfully try to combat the effects of adaptation to life’s joys and triumphs. We can set and pursue intrinsic and meaningful new goals (as I’m sure he’ll now do). We can open ourselves up to novel opportunities and surprises in our lives. We can try to savor and appreciate what we have (polish those medals, relish our good health) rather than lament what is lost.

Peak experiences are great, but it’s the accumulation of mildly positive events that produce lasting happiness.

Happiness Breeds Success…and Money!

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0700

I had a rather interesting experience this week appearing on the CNBC show, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch. The theme was that being happy will bring you cash. Over the top? Absolutely. Ridiculously enthusiastic and fakely combative? Definitely. The people were all very nice though, and I had fun (even after the first segment, when the executive producer told everyone they were doing “a great job,” but then pulled me aside and ordered me “to amp it up”).

So, does happiness deliver dollar bills? Well, actually, the evidence suggests it does.

I’ll explain how, but allow me first to backtrack for a moment.

As an experimental social psychologist who has been studying happiness for almost 20 years, I’m often asked, “What makes people happy?” Until a few years ago, my answer always reflected the common wisdom and empirical findings in my field – “It’s relationships, stupid.” That is, I always responded that our interpersonal ties – the strength of our friendships, familial bonds, and intimate connections – show the highest correlations with well-being.

Imagine my surprise then, after Ed Diener, Laura King, and I conducted a meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) of 225 studies of well-being. I wholly expected to discover that social relationships – more than any other variable – would be both causes and consequences of being happy. However, what I observed was something rather different. One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work.

The evidence, for example, demonstrates that people who have jobs distinguished by autonomy, meaning and variety – and who show superior performance, creativity, and productivity – are significantly happier than those who don’t. Supervisors are happier than those lower on the totem pole, and leaders who receive high ratings from their customers are happier than those with poor ratings. And, of course, the income that a job provides is also associated with happiness, though we now all know that money has more of an impact when we have less of it.

Why does our work make us happy? Because it provides us a sense of identity, structure to our days, and important and meaningful life goals to pursue. Perhaps even more important, it furnishes us with close colleagues, friends and even marriage partners.

The story doesn’t end there, however. Studies reveal that the causal direction between happiness and work runs both ways. Not only do creativity and productivity at the office make people happy, but happier people have been found to be more creative and productive. They are better “organizational citizens” (going above and beyond their job duties), better negotiators, and are less likely to take sick days, to quit, or to suffer burnout.

The most persuasive data regarding the effects of happiness on positive work outcomes (as opposed to vice versa) come from longitudinal studies – that is, investigations that track the same participants over a long period of time. These studies are great. For example, people who report that they are happy at age 18 achieve greater financial independence, higher occupational attainment and greater work autonomy by age 26. Furthermore, the happier a person is, the more likely she will get a job offer, keep her job, and get a new job if she ever loses it. Finally, one fascinating study showed that people who express more positive emotions on the job receive more favorable evaluations from their supervisors 3.5 years later.

But the point that really interested Donny Deutsch and his producers is that all of this applies to income. Not only does greater wealth make people (somewhat) happy, but happy people appear more likely to accrue greater wealth in life. For example, research has demonstrated that the happier a person is at one point in his life, the higher income he will earn at a later point. In one of my favorite studies, researchers showed that those who were happy as college freshmen had higher salaries 16 years later, when they were about 37!

But before we find yet another reason to be envious of very happy people (not only do they get to feel great, but they get to have good jobs and make more money as well!), consider what the research on happiness and work suggests. It suggests that, when it comes to work life, we can create our own so-called “upward spirals.” The more successful we are at our jobs, the higher income we make, and the better work environment we have, the happier we will be. This increased happiness will foster greater success, more money, and an improved work environment, which will further enhance happiness, and so on and so on and so on.

If you want to learn more about the psychology of happiness and how people can become happier, I’m teaching a “master class” (via phone) on 7 Thursdays (1pm-2pm EST) starting July 24, 2008 (with a break in August).

Happiness and Religion, Happiness as Religion

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:45:24 -0700

I begin with a bit of self-disclosure. I don’t have a religious or spiritual bone in my body. (Yes, maybe even less than Richard Dawkins.) But this doesn’t mean that I’m not open-minded about research on happiness and religion. As I write in my book, The How of Happiness, just because (most) religious beliefs cannot be empirically tested or falsified doesn’t mean that the consequences of having religious faith, participating in religious life, or searching for the sacred cannot be studied. Indeed, a growing body of psychological science is suggesting that religious folks are happier, healthier, and recover better after traumas than nonreligious ones.

Consider just two examples:

• If you are having serious cardiac surgery and receive strength and comfort from your religious faith, you’ll be almost 3 times more likely to be alive 6 months later.
• 47 percent of people who report attending religious services several times a week describe themselves as “very happy,” versus 28 percent of those who attend less than once a month.

The trouble is that researchers don’t really know why.

The social support and sense of identity provided by belonging to a close-knit church, temple, or mosque could be the operative mechanisms. After all, religion is usually not practiced in isolation but within a “fellowship of kindred spirits,” who share one another’s burdens, reach out to those in need, and offer friendship and companionship. Indeed, people who attend religious services on a regular basis have larger social networks – that is, more friends and acquaintances on whom they can and do rely.

Second, a person’s relationship with God can clearly be a source of comfort in troubled times, as well as a foundation for self-esteem, feeling unconditionally valued, loved, and cared for. Those who feel this way have an amazing sense of security. Their belief that God will intervene when needed gives them a sense of peace and calm, and their identification with particular biblical figures can help them interpret and guide their lives (e.g., “How should I act at this juncture?”).

Third, a sense that God has a purpose in everything helps religious people find meaning in ordinary life events, as well as in traumatic ones. A health crisis or a death in the family – especially one that is unexpected or premature – may not have a clear secular explanation and can severely challenge our basic assumptions about the fairness and justice of the world. Religion and faith can help people understand that the event is part of a broader divine plan or that it offers an opportunity for spiritual growth or that they have the ability to handle things. The sense of meaning that people derive from their religion can provide hope, a satisfying explanation via a broader, benign purpose, and, of course, solace.

Last but not least, religion and spirituality undoubtedly help people find meaning in life. Most people need to feel that they matter, that their suffering and hard work aren’t futile, and that their lives have a purpose. They need to feel a sense of control over their fates. They need to be able to justify and defend their actions – why they should forgive, what they have to be grateful for, why they should turn the other cheek, and so on. They need a reason to focus beyond just themselves.

So, I’ve been thinking recently about these questions – about why religion and spirituality have such great benefits for many people – and it got me wondering about what it must be like to go to religious services once a week. For all the reasons described above, I must assume that the regular ritual (whether it’s every Sunday morning or Friday night or some such) must provide people with…

• social and emotional support from other members
• affirmation of their identities, values, and lifestyle
• reinforcement of their meaning in life (e.g., “We are more than just a momentary blip in the universe”)
• comfort in the face of hard times
• distraction from stresses and hassles
• compassion for those less fortunate
• inspiration, awe, and hope (e.g., “I can do this,” “I’m stirred to go help someone today or forgive my enemy or save the planet.”
• a sense of control and strength to cope with challenges
• and likely much more.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? So that made me think: Can’t those individuals who don’t believe in God or who don’t want to be affiliated with any formal religious institution do something like this once a week? Can’t they get together with like-minded folks and perhaps listen to a talk (as opposed to a sermon) about well-being or human strengths or an inspiring story? Surely, the good stuff on the list above could be obtained through secular means.

Perhaps it would be a bit like attending a “happiness workshop” once a week, and departing feeling inspired and comforted and supported. That sounds cheesy, I know, but I think there’s something to it.

***And now I hope you'll forgive some shameless self-promotion: If you want to learn more about the psychology of happiness and how people can become happier, I’m teaching a “master class” (via phone) on seven Thursdays (1pm EST) in July and September, 2008. Small but important caveat: I hope you’ll feel inspired, comforted, and supported, but I’m a scientist/teacher, not a preacher!

What's So Great About Business Class?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:19:57 -0700

Singapore Airlines announced recently that it will begin flying all-business-class flights across the Pacific – Newark to Singapore started in May and Los Angeles to Singapore will start in September. The demand for business class seats is apparently enormous, so this new venture sounds like it makes perfect business sense. But the psychological scientist in me wonders whether, at the end of the day, this will prove to be such a good idea.

The reason for my hesitation is that, as growing research shows, people adapt quickly and easily to anything positive that ever happens to them. When you move into a beautiful new apartment with a view, when you obtain 20/20 vision through LASIK, when you buy a hip new hybrid, and even when you tie the knot, you get an immediate boost of happiness from the new and improved circumstances, but unfortunately the thrill only lasts for a short time. Over the coming days, weeks, and months, you find yourself taking your new apartment, eyesight, car, and marriage completely and utterly for granted.

In a theory developed with my colleague Ken Sheldon, I argue that several important factors play a role in this natural adaptation process. With apologies to the University of Virginia, their acronym is UVA: Unexpectedness, Variety, and Attention. We adapt more slowly when a positive experience, such as a job, car, or flight to Singapore, is 1) full of surprises, 2) variable, and 3) commands our attention and appreciation. The last factor is what Singapore Airlines should carefully take into account.

Here’s why. One of the primary reasons that we relish business class travel is that it makes us feel so special. This sense of privilege is enhanced when we observe the envious looks on the plebeians trudging by us on their way to their cramped and curtained-off coach-class seats. Indeed, every time we catch a glimpse of the coach section or their long line to board, we feel a burst of positive feeling – delight, contentment, self-satisfaction, and good old-fashioned pride.

What will happen when the entire flight is business class? We will lose that feeling of specialness. Even more important, we will lose the critical comparison with the “Sure, this flight is a mind-numbing 19 hours, but it could have been so much worse” alternative. Psychological scientists have reliably established that people would rather have a poorer outcome, as long as others are even worse off. For example, students prefer to have a job in which they earn $50K per year (and everyone else earns $25K) than a job in which they earn $100K per year (and everyone else earns $250K). It’s irrational, but it’s also human.

So, I wonder: Come a year’s time, will the airline end up reinstating a few rows of coach? After all, those rows would give us back the worse-off economy-class comparison, so that our attention during the flight is intermittently drawn to how much more comfort, leg room, and free cocktails we receive. In the end, it might make for more satisfied – and more loyal – customers.

How Much Confidence and Optimism Is Good For World Leaders and How Much Is Too Much?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:54:17 -0700

The recent media firestorm surrounding Scott McClellan’s tell-all about the Bush administration obscures some observations about George W. Bush that deserve scrutiny. They are nothing new. Indeed, another book, published last Fall, made some remarkably similar points. Its title, Dead Certain, perhaps says it all.

Much like McClellan, author of Dead Certain Robert Draper paints a portrait of Mr. Bush as a staunch optimist, supremely confident in his views and judgments and heedless of bad news and disconfirming information. Needless to say, a strong argument could be made that his dead certainty and abundant confidence have led him to make some policy errors with grave consequences for his administration, his party, and the country. From assuming that we’d be happily welcomed as liberators in Iraq, to proclaiming “mission accomplished” in 2004, to spending the political capital he claimed to have earned with his 2004 election on such undeniably risky (and arguably ill-advised) propositions as the overhaul of social security and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush’s compulsive confidence and optimism are partly responsible for his plummeting approval ratings, his party’s loss of the House and Senate, and the nation’s inchoate sense of unease.

As an experimental social psychologist, my job is not to analyze anyone’s personality, let alone an individual whom I’ve never seen larger than in a 42-inch image. However, Draper’s and McClellan’s characterizations of Bush lead me to ask, “How much optimism and confidence is good for world leaders and how much is too much?”

In psychology, there are mountains of data – two separate literatures’ worth – illustrating the benefits of being confident and optimistic. Those who score high on measures of optimism and self-esteem at Time 1 are relatively more likely to achieve their goals, obtain high grades, recover swiftly from surgeries, and enjoy satisfying relationships at Time 2. One reason may be that feeling sanguine about the future and certain about one’s abilities fosters motivation and initiative and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy such that, all things being equal, a confident person may be more likely to achieve her goals than someone equally able but less secure. Those who are optimistic and self-assured are also more appealing to others and may attract loyal and knowledgeable friends and advisors.

Clearly, anyone who achieves the presidency has experienced a string of good luck and fortunate circumstances, has won many more contests than the average person, and has much more reason than the rest of us to believe in his abilities and good fortune.

At what point do optimism and confidence become toxic? Psychologists argue that many, if not all, human traits have optimal levels. For example, studies demonstrate that people who report themselves as happy at age 18 will obtain more years of education and earn higher incomes in their 30s than will their less happy 18-year-old peers, but that those who score above the 90th percentile in happiness will actually do worse. Furthermore, research on the dark side of self-esteem suggests that too much self-esteem is associated with narcissism, prejudice, bullying, and other undesirable characteristics. And, finally, there is evidence that the most adaptive type of optimism is a “flexible optimism.” Flexible optimists are able to judge which situations call for optimism (e.g., when asking someone on a date, trying to sell something, or giving a speech), and which call for a more restrained optimism or defensive pessimism (e.g., when studying for a test or waging war). I vote for quiet confidence and restrained optimism in our world leaders.

No, Middle-Aged People Are Not Really Less Happy Than Anyone Else

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:24:10 -0700

I am currently teaching a seminar on “positive psychology,” which deals mostly with research on happiness. To date, I have assigned several papers about happiness written by economists, and most of the class, it seems, has found these papers a bit hard to read. Clearly, psychologists and economists approach the same problems quite differently, and here I’d like to offer one example. It involves a fundamental misunderstanding that has been circulating in the media about a recent economics paper reporting that middle-aged people are less happy than younger or older folks.

In the article in question, economists Blanchflower and Oswald reported a “U-shaped” relationship between happiness and age — namely, that middle-aged people are less happy than their younger and older counterparts. (If you think of changes in happiness over time to form the shape of the letter “U,” then younger and older people are at the top two parts of the “U” and the middle-aged are at the trough.) How did these two economists reach this conclusion? Well, if you look at the paper carefully, they actually compared the happiness of the young and old only after statistically controlling for a host of circumstantial factors. In other words, the question they asked is not whether middle-aged people differ in their happiness from others, but whether middle-aged people who are in the same life circumstances as younger and older people differ from others. To be sure, relative to those who are much younger or older, people between ages 40 and 50 are reaching the height of their careers, financially better off, and enjoying their families. Because all of these factors contribute somewhat to happiness, studies that simply compare how happy people are at various ages have found midlife to be one of life’s happier periods. What Blanchflower and Oswald found is that if we assumed that people in their 20s and 70s had the same income, education level, employment, and marital status as the middle-aged, then they’d be happier than those in their 40’s. This might be thought of as the “pure” effect of age. Do you have a hard time grasping what that even means? Then you’ve got company!

Is "The Secret" Just a Giant Placebo Effect?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:17:06 -0700

I’ve been traveling so much lately that I’ve started to play a little game by guessing what reading material people tend to bring on airplanes. The most frequently sighted book? The Secret. No surprise there. Rhonda Byrne’s book, which followed a popular DVD, will be celebrating its one-and-a-half-year anniversary atop the bestseller lists on May 28. I’ve been told about it, gushingly, not only by my new agey crunchy granola friends (OK, I live in LA), but by my more ordinarily skeptical friends as well.

“OK,” they say, “We know that the law of attraction [which argues that you can manifest or attract whatever your heart desires, from Prada bags to husbands] sounds ridiculous. But it works! It has truly, sincerely, and genuinely made me happier.”

I am a psychological scientist who conducts randomized controlled experiments that test what strategies make people happier over the long term (and how and why). But I cannot argue with the claim that faithfully using the law of attraction has made particular individuals happy. Of course, such anecdotal evidence can be strongly biased. For example, people may try to convince themselves that something into which they have put a lot of effort is truly valuable, or they may selectively recall successes versus failures. However, my guess is that if we test The Secret’s recommendations in a randomized controlled experiment, it would likely be shown to “work.” Why? Because, as my new graduate student, Matthew Della Porta, announced to me the other day in an inspired understatement, “You know, The Secret is just a giant placebo effect.”

A placebo effect occurs when a pill, procedure, or behavior has the intended salutary outcome – for example, relief of headache or lifting of depression – simply because the person believes that it will have that outcome. The placebo effect is truly mind-over-body, or mind-over-mind, in action. The pill may be a sugar pill and the strategy may be completely worthless, but if you think that it’s going to work, it just might work.

Placebo effects aren’t trivial. A sugar pill or sham treatment (even sham surgery) can lead people to feel less anxious, to show reduced inflammation, to witness declines in blood pressure, and even to build muscle mass. In the case of psychological “sham” treatments, such as those described in Rhonda Byrne’s film and book, people may benefit and become genuinely happier for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are pursuing a significant, committed, and absorbing life goal (simply having such goals is associated with happiness) and the fact that they are engaged with the world and other people (social bonds are also associated with happiness). And the list goes on.

Here’s a study that I plan to do with my students. Half the participants will be asked to practice faithfully the law of attraction. The other half will be asked to practice an alternate “law of attraction” that we have randomly scrambled and reversed beyond recognition. All will be given a reasonable-sounding rationale for why their assigned exercises should work. Our prediction is that both groups of participants will become happier over time and more successful in obtaining what they want – simply because they believe in what they’re doing, because they expect to succeed, because they are putting effort into the strategy, and because they are pursuing it in an engaged and committed fashion.

I can’t wait to learn what we find from this study. Of course, scientific experiments take much longer to conduct than the time it takes to read a book. By the time the results are in – and if they show that the law of attraction isn’t any more effective than a nonsense collection of exercises – maybe The Secret mania will have blown over and no one will care.

What Influences Our Happiness The Most?

Sonja Lyubomirsky — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:20:30 -0700

I have two friends, Seth and Michael, and one of them is a lot happier than the other.

Seth is chronically unhappy. He is often glum, frequently irritable, and sometimes hopeless, though he has never been clinically depressed. By contrast, Michael is a remarkable happy person. Although he has his low moments and periodic stress, he manages to find joy in his days and is quite content with the way his life is going. To understand why these two men are so different, let me tell you a little bit about them.

Both are in their early 40s and doing well in their careers. Michael is a professor of psychology at a prestigious university, who has reasonably bright students, a fair amount of autonomy in his work, and many opportunities for travel. His research program has been successful, garnering attention from all over the U.S. Seth is a deputy city attorney in a small but beautiful city right on the Pacific Ocean. He specializes in landlord-tenant disputes and other civil matters, and his success as a litigator has led to occasional media appearances, in which he is asked to speak about his latest cases. He gets a kick out of doing that.

Both have close-knit families. Seth is married to Allison, whom he met while on sabbatical in the Netherlands, and they have 5-year old twin boys. Michael is married to Holly. They started dating in law school, and now have a boy (age 6) and a girl (age 3).

Both men own homes in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area, about half an hour from the city and their jobs.

So, why is Michael happier than Seth? Was he simply lucky to be born with a sunnier disposition? Or, is he more fortunate with regard to the events and circumstances of his life?

Knowing them, I would be hard-pressed to assert that the life situation of one is clearly superior to the other. On balance, neither seems to have the better job, wife, kids, house, or car. Furthermore, scientific research has shown that prosperity, health, and physical attractiveness are only minimally related to one’s overall happiness. For example, a study by Ed Diener from the University of Illinois demonstrated that the richest Americans – those earning more than $10 million annually – report levels of personal happiness only slightly greater than the people who work for them. So, even if Seth had fewer of life’s “goods,” this shortfall wouldn’t explain his acute unhappiness.

What about genetics? Growing research done with identical and fraternal twins suggests that each person is born with a particular “happiness set point” – that is, a baseline or potential for happiness to which he or she is bound to return, even after major setbacks or triumphs. The set point for happiness is similar to the set point for weight. Some people are blessed with a “skinny disposition.” Even when they’re not trying, they easily maintain their weight. By contrast, others have to work extraordinarily hard to keep their weight at a desirable level and the moment they slack off even a bit, the pounds creep back on. So, Michael may simply possess a higher set point for happiness, a higher potential for well-being. He doesn’t have to work hard at it – he just is happy.

So if Michael’s happiness is due to genetics, what is left for Seth to do? Are we all doomed to obey the directives of our genes?

The answer is “no.” I am an experimental social psychologist who has conducted the first controlled experimental intervention studies to increase and maintain a person’s happiness level over and above his or her set point. In broadest terms, this research suggests that sustainable happiness is attainable regardless of genetics, if one is prepared to do the work. Much like permanent weight loss and fitness, becoming lastingly happier demands making some permanent changes, requiring effort and commitment every day of one’s life.

My two colleagues – Ken Sheldon at the University of Missouri and David Schkade at UC San Diego – and I developed a theory that describes the most important factors determining happiness. (This theory lies at the heart of my book, The How of Happiness.) In sum, we argue that the set point determines just 50% of happiness, while a mere 10% can be attributed to differences in people’s life circumstances – that is, whether they are rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, married or divorced, etc. This leaves a surprising 40% of our capacity for happiness within our power to change. This means that Seth can be a great deal happier and Michael could be even happier too.