12-10 What are some basic emotions, and what two dimensions help differentiate them?

How many distinct emotions are there? Carroll Izard (1977) isolated 10 basic emotions (joy, interest-excitement, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, contempt, fear, shame, and guilt), most present in infancy (FIGURE 12.13). Others (Tracy & Robins, 2004) believe that pride is also a distinct emotion, signaled by a small smile, head slightly tilted back, and an open posture. Love, too, may be a basic emotion (Shaver et al., 1996). But Izard has argued that other emotions are combinations of these 10, with love, for example, being a mixture of joy and interest-excitement.

The ingredients of emotion include not only physiology and expressive behavior but also our conscious experience. Across the world, people place emotional experience along the two dimensions illustrated in FIGURE 12.14—positive-versus-negative valence, and low-versus-high arousal (Russell et al., 1989, 1999a,b, 2009; Watson et al., 1999). Any emotion is some combination of feeling good versus bad, and of being aroused and energized or not. On the valence and arousal dimensions, terrified is more frightened (more unpleasant and aroused) than afraid, enraged is angrier than angry, delighted is happier than happy.

Let’s take a closer look at anger and happiness. What functions do they serve? What influences our experience of each?

477

12-11 What are the causes and consequences of anger?

Anger, the sages have said, is “a short madness” (Horace, 65–8 b.c.e.) that “carries the mind away” (Virgil, 70–19 b.c.e.) and can be “many times more hurtful than the injury that caused it” (Thomas Fuller, 1654–1734). But they have also said that “noble anger” (William Shakespeare, 1564–1616) “makes any coward brave” (Cato, 234–149 b.c.e.) and “brings back … strength” (Virgil).

When we face a threat or challenge, fear triggers flight but anger triggers fight—each at times an adaptive behavior. What makes us angry? Sometimes anger is a response to someone’s perceived misdeeds, especially when the person’s act seems willful, unjustified, and avoidable (Averill, 1983). But small hassles and blameless annoyances—foul odors, high temperatures, a traffic jam, aches and pains—also have the power to make us angry (Berkowitz, 1990).

Anger can harm us: Chronic hostility is linked to heart disease. Anger boosts our heart rate, causes our skin to drip with sweat, and raises our testosterone levels (Herrero et al., 2010; Kubo et al., 2012; Peterson & Harmon-Jones, 2012). Anger also triggers blood flow to our brain’s “alarm system,” causing us to reflect on why we are angry (Denson et al., 2009). How, then, can we rid ourselves of our anger? In a Gallup teen survey, boys more than girls reported walking away from the situation or working it off with exercise; girls more often reported talking with a friend, listening to music, or writing (Ray, 2005). Popular books and articles sometimes advise that releasing angry feelings can be better than internalizing them. When irritated, should we lash out at the offender? Are advice columnists right in urging us to teach children to vent their anger? Are “recovery” therapists right in encouraging us to rage at our dead parents, imaginatively curse the boss, or confront our childhood abuser?

Individualist cultures encourage people to vent their rage. Such advice is seldom heard in cultures where people’s identity is centered more on the group. People who keenly sense their interdependence see anger as a threat to group harmony (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In Tahiti, for instance, people learn to be considerate and gentle. In Japan, from infancy on, angry expressions are less common than in Western cultures, where in recent politics, anger seems all the rage.

The Western vent-your-anger advice presumes that we can achieve emotional release, or catharsis, through aggressive action or fantasy. Experimenters report that sometimes when people retaliate against a provoker, they may indeed calm down (Geen & Quanty, 1977; Hokanson & Edelman, 1966; Verona & Sullivan, 2008). But this tends to be true only if

In short, expressing anger can be temporarily calming if it does not leave us feeling guilty or anxious. But despite this temporary afterglow, catharsis usually fails to cleanse our rage. More often, expressing anger breeds more anger. For one thing, it may provoke further retaliation, causing a minor conflict to escalate into a major confrontation. For another, expressing anger can magnify anger. As behavior feedback research demonstrates, acting angry can make us feel angrier (Flack, 2006; Snodgrass et al., 1986). Anger’s backfire potential appeared in a study of 100 frustrated engineers and technicians just laid off by an aerospace company (Ebbesen et al., 1975). Researchers asked some workers questions that released hostility, such as, “What instances can you think of where the company has not been fair with you?” After expressing their anger, the workers later filled out a questionnaire that assessed their attitudes toward the company. Had the opportunity to “drain off” their hostility reduced it? Quite the contrary. These people expressed more hostility than those who had discussed neutral topics.

478

In another study, people who had been provoked were asked to wallop a punching bag while ruminating about the person who had angered them. Later, when given a chance for revenge, they became even more aggressive. “Venting to reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire,” concluded the researcher (Bushman, 2002).

When anger fuels physically or verbally aggressive acts we later regret, it becomes maladaptive. Anger primes prejudice. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans who responded with anger more than fear displayed intolerance for immigrants and Muslims (DeSteno et al., 2004; Skitka et al., 2004). Angry outbursts that temporarily calm us are dangerous in another way: They may be reinforcing and therefore habit forming. If stressed managers find they can drain off some of their tension by berating an employee, then the next time they feel irritated and tense they may be more likely to explode again. Think about it: The next time you are angry you are likely to repeat whatever relieved (and reinforced) your anger in the past.

What is the best way to manage your anger? Experts offer three suggestions:

Anger is not always wrong. Used wisely, it can communicate strength and competence (Tiedens, 2001). Anger also motivates people to take action and achieve goals (Aarts et al., 2010). Controlled expressions of anger are more adaptive than either hostile outbursts or pent-up angry feelings. When James Averill (1983) asked people to recall or keep careful records of their experiences with anger, they often recalled reacting assertively rather than hurtfully. Their anger frequently led them to talk things over with the offender, thereby lessening the aggravation. Civility means not only keeping silent about trivial irritations but also communicating important ones clearly and assertively. A nonaccusing statement of feeling—perhaps letting one’s housemate know that “I get irritated when the dirty dishes are left for me to clean up”—can help resolve conflicts. Anger that expresses a grievance in ways that promote reconciliation rather than retaliation can benefit a relationship.

What if someone’s behavior really hurts you, and you cannot resolve the conflict? Research commends the age-old response of forgiveness. Without letting the offender off the hook or inviting further harm, forgiveness releases anger and calms the body. To explore the neural effects of forgiveness, German students had their brain scanned while someone thwarted their opportunity to earn money (Strang et al., 2014). Next, the students were asked whether or not they forgave the wrongdoer. Forgiveness increased blood flow to brain regions that help people understand their own emotions and make socially appropriate decisions.

479

12-12 What is the feel-good, do-good phenomenon, and what is the focus of positive psychology research?

People aspire to, and wish one another, health and happiness. And for good reason. Our state of happiness or unhappiness colors everything. Happy people perceive the world as safer and feel more confident. They are more decisive and cooperate more easily. They rate job applicants more favorably, savor their positive past experiences without dwelling on the negative, and are more socially connected. They live healthier and more energized and satisfied lives (DeNeve et al., 2013; Mauss et al., 2011). When your mood is gloomy, life as a whole seems depressing and meaningless—and you think more skeptically and attend more critically to your surroundings. Let your mood brighten, and your thinking broadens and becomes more playful and creative (Baas et al., 2008; Forgas, 2008b; Fredrickson, 2013).

This helps explain why college students’ happiness helps predict their life course. One study showed that the happiest 20-year-olds were more likely to marry and less likely to divorce (Stutzer & Frey, 2006). In another study, which surveyed thousands of U.S. college students in 1976 and restudied them at age 37, happy students had gone on to earn significantly more money than their less-happy-than-average peers (Diener et al., 2002). When we are happy, our relationships, self-image, and hopes for the future also seem more promising.

Moreover—and this is one of psychology’s most consistent findings—happiness doesn’t just feel good, it does good. In study after study, a mood-boosting experience (finding money, succeeding on a challenging task, recalling a happy event) has made people more likely to give money, pick up someone’s dropped papers, volunteer time, and do other good deeds. Psychologists call it the feel-good, do-good phenomenon (Salovey, 1990).

The reverse is also true: Doing good also promotes good feeling. Feeling good, for example, increases people’s willingness to donate kidneys. And kidney donation leaves donors feeling good (Brethel-Haurwitz & Marsh, 2014). One survey of more than 200,000 people in 136 countries found that, nearly everywhere, people report feeling happier after spending money on others rather than on themselves (Aknin et al., 2013). Some happiness coaches harness the do-good, feel-good phenonemon as they assign people to perform a daily “random act of kindness” and to record the results.

William James was writing about the importance of happiness (“the secret motive for all [we] do”) as early as 1902. By the 1960s, the humanistic psychologists were interested in advancing human fulfillment. In the twenty-first century, under the leadership of American Psychological Association past-president Martin Seligman, positive psychology is using scientific methods to study human flourishing. This young subfield includes studies of subjective well-being—our feelings of happiness (sometimes defined as a high ratio of positive to negative feelings) or sense of satisfaction with life. For example, researchers are exploring:

480

Taken together, satisfaction with the past, happiness with the present, and optimism about the future define the positive psychology movement’s first pillar: positive well-being. Seligman views happiness as a by-product of a pleasant, engaged, and meaningful life.

Positive psychology is about building not just a pleasant life, says Seligman, but also a good life that engages one’s skills, and a meaningful life that points beyond oneself. Thus, the second pillar, positive character, focuses on exploring and enhancing creativity, courage, compassion, integrity, self-control, leadership, wisdom, and spirituality.

The third pillar, positive groups, communities, and cultures, seeks to foster a positive social ecology. This includes healthy families, communal neighborhoods, effective schools, socially responsible media, and civil dialogue.

“Positive psychology,” Seligman and colleagues have said (2005), “is an umbrella term for the study of positive emotions, positive character traits, and enabling institutions.” Its focus differs from psychology’s traditional interests during its first century, when attention was directed toward understanding and alleviating negative states—abuse and anxiety, depression and disease, prejudice and poverty. Indeed, articles on selected negative emotions since 1887 have outnumbered those on positive emotions by 17 to 1.

In ages past, times of relative peace and prosperity have enabled cultures to turn their attention from repairing weakness and damage to promoting what Seligman (2002) has called “the highest qualities of life.” Prosperous fifth-century Athens nurtured philosophy and democracy. Flourishing fifteenth-century Florence nurtured great art. Victorian England, flush with the bounty of the British Empire, nurtured honor, discipline, and duty. In this millennium, Seligman believes, thriving Western cultures have a parallel opportunity to create, as a “humane, scientific monument,” a more positive psychology, concerned not only with weakness and damage but also with strength and virtue. Thanks to his leadership, the movement has gained strength, with supporters in 77 countries from Croatia to China (IPPA, 2009, 2010; Seligman, 2004, 2011). Their research on human flourishing has given us insights into many aspects of our well-being, including studies of the predictors of happiness.

Will psychology have a more positive mission in this century? Without slighting the need to repair damage and cure disease, positive psychology’s proponents hope so. With American Psychologist and British Psychologist special issues devoted to positive psychology; with many new books; with networked scientists working in worldwide research groups; and with prizes, research awards, summer institutes, and a graduate program promoting positive psychology scholarship, these psychologists have reason to be positive. Cultivating a more positive psychology mission may help Seligman achieve his most ambitious goal: By the year 2051, 51 percent of the world will be “flourishing.” “It’s in our hands not only to witness this,” he says, “but to take part in making this happen” (Seligman, 2011).

12-13 How do time, wealth, adaptation, and comparison affect our happiness levels?

Are some days of the week happier than others? In what is likely psychology’s biggest-ever data sample, social psychologist Adam Kramer (at my [DM’s] request and in cooperation with Facebook) did a naturalistic observation of emotion words in “billions” of status updates. After eliminating exceptional days, such as holidays, he tracked the frequency of positive and negative emotion words by day of the week. The most positive moods days? Friday and Saturday (FIGURE 12.15). A similar analysis of emotion-related words in 59 million Twitter messages found Friday to Sunday the week’s happiest days (Golder & Macy, 2011). For you, too?

Over the long run, our emotional ups and downs tend to balance out. This is true even over the course of the day (FIGURE 12.16). Positive emotion rises over the early to middle part of most days and then drops off (Kahneman et al., 2004; Watson, 2000). A stressful event—an argument, a sick child, a car problem—can trigger a bad mood. No surprise there. But by the next day, the gloom nearly always lifts (Affleck et al., 1994; Bolger et al., 1989; Stone & Neale, 1984). Our overall judgments of our lives often show lingering effects of good or bad events, but our moods typically rebound (Luhmann et al., 2012). If anything, people tend to bounce back from a bad day to a better-than-usual good mood the following day.

481

Even when negative events drag us down for longer periods, our bad mood usually ends. A romantic breakup feels devastating, but eventually the wound heals. In one study, faculty members up for tenure expected their lives would be deflated by a negative decision. Actually, 5 to 10 years later, their happiness level was about the same as for those who received tenure (Gilbert et al., 1998).

Grief over the loss of a loved one or anxiety after a severe trauma (such as child abuse, rape, or the terrors of war) can linger. But usually, even tragedy is not permanently depressing. People who become blind or paralyzed may not completely recover their previous well-being, but those with an agreeable personality usually recover near-normal levels of day-to-day happiness (Boyce & Wood, 2011). So do those who must go on kidney dialysis or have permanent colostomies (Riis et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2009). Even if you lose the use of all four limbs, explained psychologist Daniel Kahneman (2005), “you will gradually start thinking of other things, and the more time you spend thinking of other things the less miserable you are going to be.” Contrary to what many people believe, most patients “locked-in” a motionless body do not indicate they want to die (Bruno et al., 2008, 2011; Nizzi et al., 2012; Smith & Delargy, 2005).

The surprising reality: We overestimate the duration of our emotions and underestimate our resiliency and capacity to adapt. (As one who inherited hearing loss with a trajectory toward that of my mother, who spent the last 13 years of her life completely deaf, I [DM] take heart from these findings.)

482

“Do you think you would be happier if you made more money?” Yes, replied 73 percent of Americans in a 2006 Gallup poll. How important is “Being very well off financially?” Very important, say 82 percent of entering U.S. collegians (FIGURE 12.17).

And to a point, wealth does correlate with well-being. Consider:

So, it seems that having enough money to buy your way out of hunger and to have a sense of control over your life does buy some happiness (Fischer & Boer, 2011). As Australian data confirm, the power of more money to increase happiness is significant at low incomes and diminishes as income rises (Cummins, 2006). A $1000 annual wage increase does a lot more for the average person in Malawi than for the average person in Switzerland. This implies that raising low incomes will do more to increase happiness than raising high incomes.

Once one has enough money for comfort and security, piling up more and more matters less and less. Experiencing luxury diminishes our savoring of life’s simpler pleasures (Quoidbach et al., 2010). If you’ve skied the Alps, your neighborhood sledding hill pales.

And consider this: During the last half-century, the average U.S. citizen’s buying power almost tripled. Did this greater wealth—enabling twice as many cars per person, not to mention iPads, smartphones, and HDTVs—also buy more happiness? As FIGURE 12.18 shows, the average American, though certainly richer, is not a bit happier. In 1957, some 35 percent said they were “very happy,” as did slightly fewer—33 percent—in 2012. Much the same has been true of Europe, Australia, and Japan, where increasing real incomes have not produced increasing happiness (Australian Unity, 2008; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002, 2009; Di Tella & MacCulloch, 2010). Ditto China, where living standards have risen but life satisfaction has not (Davey & Rato, 2012; Easterlin et al., 2012). These findings lob a bombshell at modern materialism: Economic growth in affluent countries has provided no apparent boost to morale or social well-being.

Ironically, in every culture, those who strive hardest for wealth have tended to live with lower well-being, especially when they seek money to prove themselves, gain power, or show off rather than support their families (Niemiec et al., 2009; Ryan, 1999; Srivastava et al., 2001). Those who instead strive for intimacy, personal growth, and community contribution experience a higher quality of life (Kasser, 2002, 2011).

483

Two psychological principles explain why, for those who are not poor, more money buys little more than a temporary surge of happiness and why our emotions seem attached to elastic bands that pull us back from highs or lows. In its own way, each principle suggests that happiness is relative.

Happiness Is Relative to Our Own Experience The adaptation-level phenomenon describes our tendency to judge various stimuli in comparison with our past experiences. As psychologist Harry Helson (1898–1977) explained, we adjust our neutral levels—the points at which sounds seem neither loud nor soft, temperatures neither hot nor cold, events neither pleasant nor unpleasant—based on our experience. We then notice and react to variations up or down from these levels. Thus, after an initial surge of pleasure, improvements become our “new normal,” and we then require something even better to give us another surge of happiness. Yesterday’s marvelous becomes today’s mundane.

484

So, could we ever create a permanent social paradise? Probably not (Campbell, 1975; Di Tella et al., 2010). People who have experienced a recent windfall—from a lottery, an inheritance, or a surging economy—typically feel elated (Diener & Oishi, 2000; Gardner & Oswald, 2007). So would you, if you woke up tomorrow to your utopia—perhaps a world with no bills, no ills, perfect scores, and someone who loves you unreservedly. But after a time, you would gradually recalibrate your adaptation level, and you would adjust your new neutral level to include these new experiences. Before long, you would again sometimes feel gratified (when events exceed your expectations) and sometimes feel deprived (when they fall below), and sometimes feel neutral. The point to remember: Feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, success and failure are judgments we make based partly on our prior experience. Satisfaction, as Richard Ryan (1999) said, “has a short half life.” Ditto disappointment, which means that you may bounce back from a setback sooner than you expect.

Happiness Is Relative to Others’ Success We are always comparing ourselves with others. And whether we feel good or bad depends on who those others are (Lyubomirsky, 2001). We are slow-witted or clumsy only when others are smarter or more agile. When we sense that we are worse off than others with whom we compare ourselves, we are experiencing relative deprivation. Thus, when Miguel Cabrera achieved an 8-year, $248 million baseball contract, his deal surely made him temporarily happy, but it likely also diminished other star players’ satisfaction with their lesser, multimillion-dollar contracts. Likewise, the economic surge that has made some urban Chinese newly affluent appears to have fueled among other Chinese a sense of relative deprivation (Davey & Rato, 2012: Easterlin et al., 2012). Seeing others succeed may inflate our own expectations, and when expectations soar above attainments, the result is disappointment.

Satisfaction stems less from our income than from our income rank (Boyce et al., 2010). Better to make $50,000 when others make $25,000 than to make $100,000 when friends, neighbors, and co-workers make $200,000 (Solnick & Hemenway, 1998, 2009). Likewise, a raise will make you happier if it’s greater than the raise received by others around you (Graham, 2011).

Such comparisons help us understand why the middle- and upper-income people in a given country, who can compare themselves with the relatively poor, tend to have greater life satisfaction than their less fortunate compatriots. Nevertheless, once people reach a moderate income level, further increases buy little more happiness. Why? Because as people climb the ladder of success they mostly compare themselves with local peers who are at or above their current level (Gruder, 1977; Suls & Tesch, 1978; Zell & Alicke, 2010). “Beggars do not envy millionaires, though of course they will envy other beggars who are more successful,” noted British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1930, p. 90). Thus, “Napoleon envied Caesar, Caesar envied Alexander, and Alexander, I daresay, envied Hercules, who never existed. You cannot, therefore, get away from envy by means of success alone, for there will always be in history or legend some person even more successful than you are” (pp. 68–69).

Over the last half century, inequality in Western countries has increased. The rising economic tide shown in Figure 12.18 has lifted the yachts faster than the rowboats. Does it matter? Places with great inequality have higher crime rates, obesity, anxiety, and drug use, and lower life expectancy (Kawachi et al., 1999; Ratcliff, 2013; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Times and places with greater income inequality also tend to be less happy—a result that people’s social comparisons help explain (Hagerty, 2000; Helliwell et al., 2013; Oishi et al., 2011).

Just as comparing ourselves with those who are better off creates envy, so counting our blessings as we compare ourselves with those worse off boosts our contentment. In one study, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee women considered others’ deprivation and suffering (Dermer et al., 1979). They viewed vivid depictions of how grim life was in Milwaukee in 1900. They imagined and then wrote about various personal tragedies, such as being burned and disfigured. Later, the women expressed greater satisfaction with their own lives. Similarly, when mildly depressed people have read about someone who was even more depressed, they felt somewhat better (Gibbons, 1986). “I cried because I had no shoes,” states a Persian saying, “until I met a man who had no feet.”

12-14 What are some predictors of happiness?

Happy people share many characteristics (TABLE 12.2). But why are some people normally so joyful and others so somber? Here, as in so many other areas, the answer is found in the interplay between nature and nurture.

485

Genes matter. In one study of hundreds of identical and fraternal twins, about 50 percent of the difference among people’s happiness ratings was heritable (Gigantesco et al., 2011; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996). Other twin studies report similar or slightly less heritability (Bartels & Boomsma, 2009; Lucas, 2008; Nes et al., 2010). Identical twins raised apart are often similarly happy. Moreover, researchers are now drilling down to identify how specific genes influence our happiness (De Neve et al., 2012; Fredrickson et al., 2013).

But our personal history and our culture matter, too. On the personal level, as we have seen, our emotions tend to balance around a level defined by our experience. On the cultural level, groups vary in the traits they value. Self-esteem and achievement matter more to Westerners, who value individualism. Social acceptance and harmony matter more to those in communal cultures such as Japan, which stress family and community (Diener et al., 2003; Fulmer et al., 2010; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009).

Depending on our genes, our outlook, and our recent experiences, our happiness seems to fluctuate around our “happiness set point,” which disposes some people to be ever upbeat and others more negative. Even so, after following thousands of lives over two decades, researchers have determined that our satisfaction with life is not fixed (Lucas & Donnellan, 2007). Happiness rises and falls, and can be influenced by factors that are under our control. A striking example: In a long-term German study, married partners were as similarly satisfied with their lives as were identical twins (Schimmack & Lucas, 2007). Relationship quality matters.

If we can enhance our happiness on an individual level, could we use happiness research to refocus our national priorities more on the pursuit of happiness? Many psychologists believe we could. Ed Diener (2006, 2009, 2013), supported by 52 colleagues, has proposed ways in which nations might measure national well-being. “Policymakers should be interested in subjective well-being not only because of its inherent value to citizens, but also because individuals’ subjective well-being can have positive spillover benefits for the society as a whole.”

Happiness research offers new ways to assess the impacts of various public policies, argue Diener and his colleagues. Happy societies are not only prosperous, but also places where people trust one another, feel free, and enjoy close relationships (Helliwell et al., 2013; Oishi & Schimmack, 2010). Thus, in debates about the minimum wage, economic inequality, tax rates, divorce laws, health care, and city planning, people’s psychological well-being should be a prime consideration—a point affirmed by 41 nations that have added well-being measures to their national agendas (Diener, 2013). Britain’s Annual Population Survey, for example, asks its citizens how satisfied they are with their lives, how worthwhile they judge their lives, and how happy and how anxious they felt yesterday (BLS, 2012). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013) has offered guidelines to its 34 member nations for how to assess citizen’s well-being using such questions. The predictive power of national well-being assessments was apparent in 2011, as the governments of Egypt and Tunisia succumbed to popular uprisings in the aftermath of declining life satisfaction (FIGURE 12.19).

486

Your happiness, like your cholesterol level, is genetically influenced. Yet as cholesterol is also influenced by diet and exercise, so happiness is partly under your control (Layous & Lyubomirsky, 2014; Nes, 2010). Here are 11 research-based suggestions for improving your mood and increasing your satisfaction with life.

487