Science of Happiness
J.F. Helliwel, Expanding the social science of happiness
(2018)
Recent advances in valid and reliable self-report happiness scales have enabled social
scientists to empirically study human well-being, which was historically dominated by
philosophy and religion. These measures reveal that social connections and prosocial
behaviour are central to happiness, influencing life satisfaction, resilience, health and
even community recovery after crises. Prosocial actions (helping, sharing or donating)
are naturally rewarding and enhance both individual and collective well-being.
The authors argue for a broader social science of happiness that is explicitly social in
focus, emphasizing:
1. The importance of social life and interpersonal relationships for well-being
2. Cross-disciplinary collaboration among researchers, policymakers and
practitioners to translate findings into effective real-world interventions
Evidence shows that fostering positive states improves not only subjective well-being
but also long-term outcomes like health, creativity and social resources.
Interdisciplinary, large-scale research and policy experimentation are needed to shift
focus from simply alleviating problems to actively promoting well-being. Global efforts
exemplify how data and collaboration can inform policy.
Ultimately, a more inclusive and applied social science of happiness can guide policies
that build positive experiences, social capital and prosocial behaviour, achieving
broader societal benefits and improved human flourishing.
, R.E. Lucas, Reevaluating the strengths and weakness of
self-report measures of subjective well-being (2018)
KEYWORDS
Researchers use subjective well-being (SWB) measures to understand which life
circumstances and personal traits contribute to a good life and to inform personal and
policy decisions. SWB reflects a person’s own evaluation of life as a whole,
acknowledging that individuals weigh aspects of life, such as relationships or career,
differently. Because these evaluations are subjective, self-report measures are
essential, even though they have limitations. Validating SWB measures depends on
evidence of reliability and construct validity and on understanding how people form
their overall life evaluations.
SELF-REPORT APPROACHES TO MEASURING SUBJECTIV WELL-BEING
Subjective well-being (SWB) can be measured through cognitive evaluations (overall
life satisfaction) or through affective experiences, which capture the frequency and
intensity of positive and negative emotions. Traditional retrospective measures rely on
recalling past experiences but can be biased by memory errors and aggregation
distortions. To address this, experience sampling methods collect real-time reports of
emotions and activities, providing more accurate insights into daily well-being. Hybrid
approaches, like the Day Reconstruction Method, allows participants to break their day
into episodes and report activities, social context and emotions, combining the
accuracy of real-time measures with the efficiency of questionnaires. These methods
together help researchers balance practicality and precision in assessing life
satisfaction and emotional experience.
THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING MEASURES
Self-reports of subjective well-being (SWB) have no gold standard, as they capture
internal thoughts and feelings that may be misremembered or misreported. Reliability
is generally reasonable, with single- and multi-item life satisfaction measures showing
stable correlations over time. Validity is supported across multiple forms: face,
content, convergent, discriminant and construct validity, with measures correlating as
expected with income, relationships and relevant behaviours. Evidence also shows
that single-item measures perform similarly to multiple-item measures, making them
a practical and valid option for assessing SWB.
THE JUDGMENT MODEL OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
The judgment model of SWB suggests people construct life satisfaction responses on
the spot, often relying on heuristics like current mood. Mood and the salience of
specific life domains can bias global evaluations, though making the source of mood
,or context explicit can reduce these effects. This research highlights contextual
influences and potential biases in self-reported SWB, informing assessments of their
validity.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE JUDGMENT MODEL
Concerns about past research practices (small samples, selective reporting, analytic
flexibility) raised doubts about early findings from the judgment model of SWB. Many
original studies reported implausibly large effects of mood or context on life
satisfaction.
Recent large-sample replication show these effects are generally weak or negligible.
Mood, item-order and weather effects on life satisfaction are minimal, though asking
political questions first can slightly lower ratings. Overall, while the judgment model
identifies processes that might influence SWB judgments, evidence suggests these
have little impact on the reliability or validity of self-reported SWB.
COMPARING THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPORTIES OF GLOBAL AND
EXPERIENTIAL MEASURES
Global and experiential self-report measures of well-being differ in focus: global
measures assess overall life satisfaction, while experiential methods like the Day
Reconstruction Method capture affect in real time to reduce memory biases. DRM
measures show moderate stability over weeks and even years, but global measures
often correlate as strongly with informant reports and relevant outcomes. Experiential
measures may exaggerate situational fluctuations and carry higher respondent
burden, limiting their advantage. Overall, they are useful for short-term affect but
offer no clear superiority over global measures for assessing stable well-being.
, J.M. Norrish, Is the study of happiness a worthy scientific
pursuit? (2008)
INTRODUCTION
Happiness or subjective well-being (SWB), has long been debated, but only recently
has it been systematically studied. Psychology traditionally focused on alleviating
dysfunction, viewing the study of positive emotions as less urgent. Positive
psychology challenges this, emphasizing human strengths, virtues and flourishing.
Defining happiness: SWB includes life satisfaction (cognitive) and positive/negative
affect (emotional) components. Hedonic happiness focuses on pleasure, while
eudaimonic happiness emphasizes fulfilling potential and living authentically. Positive
psychology integrates these, emphasizing the pleasant, good and meaningful life and
flow, a state of deep engagement.
Set point theory suggests happiness is relatively stable due to adaptation, but
individual differences, life events and coping strategies show happiness can be
influenced. While traits like extraversion influence well-being, longitudinal studies
show life satisfaction fluctuates with circumstances, indicating happiness is not fixed.
Social comparisons affect perceived happiness, but affective experiences and needs
fulfilment also matter.
Happiness is shaped by set points, circumstances and intentional activities. Strategies
like using signature strengths, savouring experiences and engaging in meaningful acts
can boost well-being. Gratitude and kindness also increase happiness. Beyond basic
needs, wealth has limited impact on happiness and materialism can reduce well-
being.
Economic growth can improve societal happiness, especially in developing nations,
while hardship reduces it. Happiness is subjective but measurable via self-reports,
informant reports and experience sampling methods. These tools are reliable and
capture both momentary and enduring well-being. Research shows happiness is partly
malleable, influenced by personal actions and societal conditions and can be
measured reliably, supporting the scientific study of well-being.
INVESTIGATING HAPPINESS: A WORTHY GOAL
Psychology’s traditional focus on negative emotions has left positive emotions like
happiness understudied, yet investigating them provides a more complete
understanding of human experience. Research into happiness has advanced scientific
knowledge, such as the debate on whether positive and negative affect are
J.F. Helliwel, Expanding the social science of happiness
(2018)
Recent advances in valid and reliable self-report happiness scales have enabled social
scientists to empirically study human well-being, which was historically dominated by
philosophy and religion. These measures reveal that social connections and prosocial
behaviour are central to happiness, influencing life satisfaction, resilience, health and
even community recovery after crises. Prosocial actions (helping, sharing or donating)
are naturally rewarding and enhance both individual and collective well-being.
The authors argue for a broader social science of happiness that is explicitly social in
focus, emphasizing:
1. The importance of social life and interpersonal relationships for well-being
2. Cross-disciplinary collaboration among researchers, policymakers and
practitioners to translate findings into effective real-world interventions
Evidence shows that fostering positive states improves not only subjective well-being
but also long-term outcomes like health, creativity and social resources.
Interdisciplinary, large-scale research and policy experimentation are needed to shift
focus from simply alleviating problems to actively promoting well-being. Global efforts
exemplify how data and collaboration can inform policy.
Ultimately, a more inclusive and applied social science of happiness can guide policies
that build positive experiences, social capital and prosocial behaviour, achieving
broader societal benefits and improved human flourishing.
, R.E. Lucas, Reevaluating the strengths and weakness of
self-report measures of subjective well-being (2018)
KEYWORDS
Researchers use subjective well-being (SWB) measures to understand which life
circumstances and personal traits contribute to a good life and to inform personal and
policy decisions. SWB reflects a person’s own evaluation of life as a whole,
acknowledging that individuals weigh aspects of life, such as relationships or career,
differently. Because these evaluations are subjective, self-report measures are
essential, even though they have limitations. Validating SWB measures depends on
evidence of reliability and construct validity and on understanding how people form
their overall life evaluations.
SELF-REPORT APPROACHES TO MEASURING SUBJECTIV WELL-BEING
Subjective well-being (SWB) can be measured through cognitive evaluations (overall
life satisfaction) or through affective experiences, which capture the frequency and
intensity of positive and negative emotions. Traditional retrospective measures rely on
recalling past experiences but can be biased by memory errors and aggregation
distortions. To address this, experience sampling methods collect real-time reports of
emotions and activities, providing more accurate insights into daily well-being. Hybrid
approaches, like the Day Reconstruction Method, allows participants to break their day
into episodes and report activities, social context and emotions, combining the
accuracy of real-time measures with the efficiency of questionnaires. These methods
together help researchers balance practicality and precision in assessing life
satisfaction and emotional experience.
THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING MEASURES
Self-reports of subjective well-being (SWB) have no gold standard, as they capture
internal thoughts and feelings that may be misremembered or misreported. Reliability
is generally reasonable, with single- and multi-item life satisfaction measures showing
stable correlations over time. Validity is supported across multiple forms: face,
content, convergent, discriminant and construct validity, with measures correlating as
expected with income, relationships and relevant behaviours. Evidence also shows
that single-item measures perform similarly to multiple-item measures, making them
a practical and valid option for assessing SWB.
THE JUDGMENT MODEL OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
The judgment model of SWB suggests people construct life satisfaction responses on
the spot, often relying on heuristics like current mood. Mood and the salience of
specific life domains can bias global evaluations, though making the source of mood
,or context explicit can reduce these effects. This research highlights contextual
influences and potential biases in self-reported SWB, informing assessments of their
validity.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE JUDGMENT MODEL
Concerns about past research practices (small samples, selective reporting, analytic
flexibility) raised doubts about early findings from the judgment model of SWB. Many
original studies reported implausibly large effects of mood or context on life
satisfaction.
Recent large-sample replication show these effects are generally weak or negligible.
Mood, item-order and weather effects on life satisfaction are minimal, though asking
political questions first can slightly lower ratings. Overall, while the judgment model
identifies processes that might influence SWB judgments, evidence suggests these
have little impact on the reliability or validity of self-reported SWB.
COMPARING THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPORTIES OF GLOBAL AND
EXPERIENTIAL MEASURES
Global and experiential self-report measures of well-being differ in focus: global
measures assess overall life satisfaction, while experiential methods like the Day
Reconstruction Method capture affect in real time to reduce memory biases. DRM
measures show moderate stability over weeks and even years, but global measures
often correlate as strongly with informant reports and relevant outcomes. Experiential
measures may exaggerate situational fluctuations and carry higher respondent
burden, limiting their advantage. Overall, they are useful for short-term affect but
offer no clear superiority over global measures for assessing stable well-being.
, J.M. Norrish, Is the study of happiness a worthy scientific
pursuit? (2008)
INTRODUCTION
Happiness or subjective well-being (SWB), has long been debated, but only recently
has it been systematically studied. Psychology traditionally focused on alleviating
dysfunction, viewing the study of positive emotions as less urgent. Positive
psychology challenges this, emphasizing human strengths, virtues and flourishing.
Defining happiness: SWB includes life satisfaction (cognitive) and positive/negative
affect (emotional) components. Hedonic happiness focuses on pleasure, while
eudaimonic happiness emphasizes fulfilling potential and living authentically. Positive
psychology integrates these, emphasizing the pleasant, good and meaningful life and
flow, a state of deep engagement.
Set point theory suggests happiness is relatively stable due to adaptation, but
individual differences, life events and coping strategies show happiness can be
influenced. While traits like extraversion influence well-being, longitudinal studies
show life satisfaction fluctuates with circumstances, indicating happiness is not fixed.
Social comparisons affect perceived happiness, but affective experiences and needs
fulfilment also matter.
Happiness is shaped by set points, circumstances and intentional activities. Strategies
like using signature strengths, savouring experiences and engaging in meaningful acts
can boost well-being. Gratitude and kindness also increase happiness. Beyond basic
needs, wealth has limited impact on happiness and materialism can reduce well-
being.
Economic growth can improve societal happiness, especially in developing nations,
while hardship reduces it. Happiness is subjective but measurable via self-reports,
informant reports and experience sampling methods. These tools are reliable and
capture both momentary and enduring well-being. Research shows happiness is partly
malleable, influenced by personal actions and societal conditions and can be
measured reliably, supporting the scientific study of well-being.
INVESTIGATING HAPPINESS: A WORTHY GOAL
Psychology’s traditional focus on negative emotions has left positive emotions like
happiness understudied, yet investigating them provides a more complete
understanding of human experience. Research into happiness has advanced scientific
knowledge, such as the debate on whether positive and negative affect are
