Revisiting the Happiness Pie

Happiness is a choice. Approximately 40% of your happiness is controlled by your thoughts, behaviours, and actions.

- Sonya Lyubomirsky, The How of Happiness

Sustaining Authentic Happiness

In 1978, psychologist Jim Brickman and colleagues published a study now widely considered to be a ‘classic’ in the psychology of happiness. Titled, “Lottery victims and accident victims” the article includes a subtitle that asks, “Is happiness relative?” [1]. Sampling lottery winners and paraplegics, Brickman and colleagues found that, given enough time, we habituate to our circumstances. That is, while good and bad experiences can momentarily affect our happiness, we eventually return close to being as happy as how we were before major incidents in our lives [2]. The findings support what many researchers call ‘hedonic treadmill theory.’

The hedonic treadmill occurs because of two reasons. First, positive emotions gained from any pleasant experience diminish with each subsequent, comparable experience. That first concert experience, holiday at an exotic location, or accomplishment is likely to be more enjoyable than subsequent ones. Anticipation and interest give way to adaptation and indifference with each similar positive experience. Second, this adaptation occurs because we increase our aspirations and desire for even more positivity with each experience. Completing a half-marathon was an amazing achievement – but it pales to the anticipation of what it might be like to be the first among your friends to complete a full marathon [3]. The tendency raises an important question for sustaining happiness: If we do naturally revert to ‘set points’ of happiness, will sustained happiness always be beyond our grasp?

Researchers have proposed ways to counter the effects of the hedonic treadmill. In Sonya Lyubomirsky’s best-selling The How of Happiness, the author proposes that as much as 40% of our happiness is determined by our actions – what she calls ‘intentional activities’ [4]. These activities include practising gratitude, avoiding overthinking, and cultivating optimism. By engaging in a variety of these activities, Lyubomirsky proposes that we can attain sustained happiness. This ‘Sustainable Happiness Model (SHM)’ is presented as a pie chart dubbed ‘The Happiness Pie’, suggesting that while 50% of our happiness is determined by our personality (i.e., our set-point), just 10% is determined by our circumstances [5]. The claim sounds promising and intuitively true. But is it?

A Critical Assessment of the 50:40:10 Ratio

A review of the happiness pie by Nicholas Brown and Julia Rohrer raises questions about the claims made by this popular idea [6]. Their first criticism concerns the conclusion that Lyubomirsky makes about the percentages making up one’s happiness. Just because 40% of a population’s happiness is possibly determined by one’s actions, it does not follow that 40% of an individual’s happiness follows the same. Put another way, “40% of the statistical variability in this sample’s happiness is because of an activity” is not the same as saying “40% of your happiness boils down to your actions.” Concluding otherwise means that we (falsely) interpret a statistical result representing a population effect as an individual effect. Brown and Rohrer say that the interpretation otherwise confuses ‘between subjects variance composition with individual-level change’. The 50:40:10 ratio, while appealing and intuitive to the lay audience, leads us to incorrectly assume a whopping (and likely overstated 40%) of the time, happiness is within our control.

Second, Brown and Rohrer question whether the three claimed factors – genetic, circumstantial, and intentional activities additively add to well-being independently of each other. Building off their first criticism, it is reasonable to argue that certain personality types will benefit more from certain intentional activities under certain circumstances during specific time points in their lives. For instance, one study showed that gratitude journaling was effective in enhancing the well-being of self-critical individuals [7]. Conversely, the same study found that needy individuals – those excessively reliant on others and report themselves as helpless – reported that both gratitude journaling and listening to uplifting music worsened their well-being. The context and culture of well-being interventions matter as well. Gratitude interventions may be less effective in promoting well-being in South Korean participants – causing them to feel indebtedness more than in participants from the United States [8]. Matching one’s personality and circumstances (and cultural context) to one’s intentional activity is crucial to maximizing its effects on a person’s well-being [9]. Brown and Rohrer then argue that 10% of one’s happiness is dependent on life circumstances is likely an understatement whereas the heritability of happiness at 50% is an understatement.

Stepping off the Hedonic Treadmill

In response, Sheldon and Lyubomirsky acknowledge these criticisms, agreeing with much of Brown and Rohrer’s points [10]. They start by highlighting how their initial happiness pie – the sustainable happiness model (SHM), was meant to be ‘speculative but not dogmatic,’ but also recognize that given new evidence, needs to be revised. They acknowledge that the 40% of happiness possibly attainable through intentional activities is likely an overestimate (p. 3). They then propose another model – the eudaimonic activity model (EAM) and suggest that engaging in growth-promoting goals and directing one’s strengths to a meaningful and fulfilling outcome is associated with greater subjective well-being. Thus, beyond engaging in activities that give a boost of positive emotion, sustainable happiness might come not just from feeling – but also, from doing good. Happiness goes beyond well-being; it also involves well-doing [11].

Happiness is reliant on having what you want while also wanting what you have [12]. To counter the effects of adaptation, Sheldon and Lyubomirsky first recommend engaging in a variety of well-being-boosting activities (trying out a new restaurant, signing up for a new experience, taking on a project you feel passionate about). The second is to cultivate an appreciation for what one already has – this can be done by avoiding the temptation to believe that one should have or deserves better. They quote, “When a person begins to wish for an even better apartment, job, or spouse, then their ability to derive enjoyment from the current version is diminished.” Finally, given the evidence for the beneficial effects of positive activities on well-being [13], they also suggest engaging with a variety of these activities, but with one important caveat – fit and tailor the intervention to your tastes. In proposing their Positive Activity Model, they highlight the need to consider individual personality, demographics, and personal circumstances when deciding on which intentional activity of positive intervention one should engage in for their well-being. In short, engage in activities that fit your circumstances and preferences, and vary them as much as possible.

Reexamining of Happiness Claims Leads to Refined Understandings of Well-Being

The science of happiness and well-being is an evolving science. What might be considered a plausible truth – as in the case of the 50:40:10 ratio of the happiness pie, gives way to refined ideas with new evidence and further research. The original happiness pie might have outlived its usefulness, but newfound understandings and revised conclusions mean that we are left with more defensible truth claims about how to attain and sustain happiness.

References

[1] Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917-927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917

[2] Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2009). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. The science of well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, 103-118.

[3] Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the hedonic adaptation prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670-680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436400

[4] Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. penguin.

[5] Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

[6] Brown, N. J. L., & Rohrer, J. M. (2020). Easy as (happiness) pie? A critical evaluation of a popular model of the determinants of well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(4), 1285–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4

[7] Sergeant, S., & Mongrain, M. (2011). Are positive psychology exercises helpful for people with depressive personality styles?. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(4), 260-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.577089

[8] Layous, K., Lee, H., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Culture matters when designing a successful happiness-increasing activity: A comparison of the United States and South Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(8), 1294-1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113487591

[9] Schueller, S. M. (2014). Person-activity fit in positive psychological interventions. In A.C. Parks & S.M. Schueller (Eds.). The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions, 385-402.

[10] Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2021). Revisiting the sustainable happiness model and pie chart: Can happiness be successfully pursued? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689421

[11] Sheldon, K. M. (2018). Understanding the good life: Eudaimonic living involves well-doing, not well-being. In J.P. Forgas & R.F. Baumeister (Eds.). The social psychology of living well (pp. 116-136). Routledge.

[12] Larsen, J. T., & McKibban, A. R. (2008). Is happiness having what you want, wanting what you have, or both? Psychological Science, 19(4), 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02095.x

[13] Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469809

Suggested Reads