Is It Possible to Become Happier? (And If So, How?)

Although some theory suggests that it is impossible to increase one’s subjective well-being (SWB), our ‘sustainable happiness model’ (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005) specifies conditions under which this may be accomplished. To illustrate the three classes of predictor in the model, we first review research on the demographic/circumstantial, temperament/personality, and intentional/experiential correlates of SWB. We then introduce the sustainable happiness model, which suggests that changing one’s goals and activities in life is the best route to sustainable new SWB. However, the goals and activities must be of certain positive types, must fit one’s personality and needs, must be practiced diligently and successfully, must be varied in their timing and enactment, and must provide a continued stream of fresh positive experiences. Research supporting the model is reviewed, including new research suggesting that happiness intervention effects are not just placebo effects. Everyone wants to be happy. Indeed, happiness may be the ultimate fundamental ‘goal’ that people pursue in their lives (Diener, 2000), a pursuit enshrined as an inalienable right in the US Declaration of Independence. The question of what produces happiness and wellbeing is the subject of a great deal of contemporary research, much of it falling under the rubric of ‘positive psychology’, an emerging field that also considers issues such as what makes for optimal relationships, optimal group functioning, and optimal communities. In this article, we first review some prominent definitions, theories, and research findings in the well-being literature. We then focus in particular on the question of whether it is possible to become lastingly happier in one’s life, drawing from our recent model of sustainable happiness. Finally, we discuss some recent experimental data suggesting that it is indeed possible to boost one’s happiness level, and to sustain that newfound level. A number of possible definitions of happiness exist. Let us start with the three proposed by Ed Diener in his landmark Psychological Bulletin 130 Is It Possible to Become Happier © 2007 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1/1 (2007): 129–145, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00002.x Journal Compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd (1984) article. The first is ‘leading a virtuous life’, in which the person adheres to society’s vision of morality and proper conduct. This definition makes no reference to the person’s feelings or emotions, instead apparently making the implicit assumption that reasonably positive feelings will ensue if the person toes the line. A second definition of happiness involves a cognitive evaluation of life as a whole. Are you content, overall, or would you do things differently given the opportunity? This reflects a personcentered view of happiness, and necessarily taps peoples’ subjective judgments of whether they are satisfied with their lives. A third definition refers to typical moods. Are you typically in a positive mood (i.e., inspired, pleased, excited) or a negative mood (i.e., anxious, upset, depressed)? In this person-centered view, it is the balance of positive to negative mood that matters (Bradburn, 1969). Although many other conceptions of well-being exist (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999; Ryan & Frederick, 1997; Ryff & Singer, 1996), ratings of life satisfaction and judgments of the frequency of positive and negative affect have received the majority of the research attention, illustrating the dominance of the second and third (person-centered) definitions of happiness in the research literature. Notably, positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction are presumed to be somewhat distinct. Thus, although life satisfaction typically correlates positively with positive affect and negatively with negative affect, and positive affect typically correlates negatively with negative affect, these correlations are not necessarily strong (and they also vary depending on whether one assesses a particular time or context, or the person’s experience as a whole). The generally modest correlations among the three variables means that an individual high in one indicator is not necessarily high (or low) in any other indicator. For example, a person with many positive moods might also experience many negative moods, and a person with predominantly good moods may or may not be satisfied with his or her life. As a case in point, a college student who has many friends and rewarding social interactions may be experiencing frequent pleasant affect, but, if he doubts that college is the right choice for him, he will be discontent with life. In contrast, a person experiencing many negative moods might nevertheless be satisfied with her life, if she finds her life meaningful or is suffering for a good cause. For example, a frazzled new mother may feel that all her most cherished life goals are being realized, yet she is experiencing a great deal of negative emotions on a daily basis. Still, the three quantities typically go together to an extent such that a comprehensive and reliable subjective well-being (SWB) indicator can be computed by summing positive affect and life satisfaction and subtracting negative affect. Can we trust people’s self-reports of happiness (or unhappiness)? Actually, we must: It would make little sense to claim that a person is happy if he or she does not acknowledge being happy. Still, it is possible to corroborate self-reports of well-being with reports from the respondents’ friends and