Being Happy: Enjoyable Activities Beat Improved Life Circumstances
Being happy and staying happy is all about our day-to-day activities according to this theory of sustainable happiness. Research suggests that the contributions to our happiness are 50% genetic, 10% from our life circumstances and fully 40% determined by our day-to-day activities. But what evidence is there for this theory?
One prediction from this theory is that engaging in new activities should increase our happiness more than an improvement in our circumstances. This is exactly what Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) tested in three related studies.
New activities vs. new circumstances
Two different signs were put up around a university campus asking for participants. One asked for participants who had recently seen an improvement in their circumstances while another asked for those who had recently taken up a new activity.
The study also tested how much these changes had been affected by hedonic adaptation (see sustainable happiness post) and variety. This was to make the comparison fair, so that both groups had not yet adapted to their new circumstances or activity and it was still providing variety - both factors thought important in sustainable happiness.
The results showed that those who had recently engaged in a new activity felt happier than those whose circumstances had improved. This provides some preliminary evidence but data collected over a period of time (longitudinal) is more convincing, so that is what Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) did in their second study.
Here they recruited participants in the same way but this time measured their happiness at three time-points. The results again supported the theory with the effects of improved circumstances increasing happiness, but the boost from a new activity being more lasting. Finally a third study along the same lines also found similar results.
The power of randomisation
A problem with both these studies is that participants in both groups were self-selected. This creates problems for the interpretation of the results. For example, perhaps the type of people who take up new activities are also prone to stay happier for longer periods. If that is the case the results aren't really showing the benefits of activities over circumstances.
This is exactly why experiments using random allocation to groups are so useful for psychologists. Once people have been randomly allocated to groups, the counter-argument about self-selection is ruled out.
Sheldon and Lyubomirsky are, therefore, currently carrying out a study with random allocation which will soon be published (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2007). Early indications bode well for their theory as the results support their previous studies. So, it looks like their previous results are not the result of self-selection.
Activities win
These studies emphasise that new, enjoyable activities have more potential for making us happy than improvements in our circumstances. Indeed activities may have as much as four times more power to make us happy.
» Discover more articles in this series on the new science of happiness.
Reference
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: Change your actions, not your circumstances. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 55-86.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Activities last and circumstances fade: An experimental study of the effects of two types of life-change upon sustainable new well-being. Manuscript in preparation.
Join 22301 readers
This article explains why I enjoy traveling so much. I'll be sure to read more from this blogger as the subjects of happiness and depression interest me.
The article was a GOOD READ.
First visit to your blog. Great stuff! I linked to this post and put you on my blogroll. I'll be back...
Thank you Anon and Lana!
The study's methodology is radically flawed and the results are completely invalid. People who are depressed are much less likely to engage in new forms of activity. Selecting only those who were already engaging in new activities of their own accord radically biased the sample.
I'm surprised the study was even published.
Your article makes perfect sense. Activities provide immediate relief from problems. Changing circumstances could take years. I am currently in a "circumstance" that could take years to change. But doing my favorite activities increases my happiness a lot. Thank you for this article. It has warded off potential depression.
David, I take your point - which the authors do acknowledge - but I think your conclusions are somewhat harsh. And, as I say in the post, the authors have now done a study with random allocation to the groups.
Anon, you're welcome.
What is the first thing you are told when you begin to get depressed, or when your circumstances change for the worse? DO SOMETHING! Finding a new activity to enjoy -- that's the cure. If you do it sooner rather than later, the chances are you can keep happiness levels up by enjoying some tennis or reading or yoga or blogging...if you procrastinate or develop unhealthy habits instead, then next thing you know you need anti-depressants.
That's how I see it.
The only flaw in the study is that you can't make a depressed person happy by offering a new activity.
Lets not forget that 'shopping' is, in fact, an activity. And for alot of people already in debt, nothing beats the temporary distraction accorded to them by a weekend afternoon spent buying stuff at the mall.
The point I'd make is that using activities to boost happiness is ultimately sidestepping the real problem with a momentary distraction. None of these articles have anything to do with real living or happiness.
Willingness to engage in an activity is key here. Many a depressed person won't budge off the couch. I'm not sure that makes the study bias. It's a definite variable to consider though.
For Octavius. I don't wanna shoot you down. But this brings up the question, "what is real living?" Isn't living what you spend you're time doing.
For a person with bad circumstances, in the end they don't have to say "I lived in squalor all my life." or something they like that. They could say "I lived my life as a musician." or "i lived my life as a soccer player" or something like that. But this kind of sidetracks the point of this article. Anyways, cool article guy!