IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v21y2020i4d10.1007_s10902-019-00128-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Easy as (Happiness) Pie? A Critical Evaluation of a Popular Model of the Determinants of Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas J. L. Brown

    (University of Groningen)

  • Julia M. Rohrer

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development
    University of Leipzig
    German Institute for Economic Research)

Abstract

An underlying principle behind much of the research in positive psychology is that individuals have considerable leeway to increase their levels of happiness. In an influential article that is frequently cited in support of such claims, Lyubomirsky et al. (Rev Gen Psychol 9:111–131, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111 ) put forward a model (subsequently popularized under the name of the “happiness pie”) in which approximately 50% of individual differences in happiness are due to genetic factors and 10% to life circumstances, leaving 40% available to be changed via volitional activities. We re-examined Lyubomirsky et al.’s claims and found several apparent deficiencies in their chain of arguments on both the empirical and the conceptual level. We conclude that there is little empirical evidence for the variance decomposition suggested by the “happiness pie,” and that even if it were valid, it is not necessarily informative with respect to the question of whether individuals can truly exert substantial influence over their own chronic happiness level. We believe that our critical re-examination of Lyubomirsky et al.’s seminal article offers insights into some common misconceptions and pitfalls of scientific inference, and we hope that it might contribute to the construction of a more rigorous and solid empirical basis for the field of positive psychology.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas J. L. Brown & Julia M. Rohrer, 2020. "Easy as (Happiness) Pie? A Critical Evaluation of a Popular Model of the Determinants of Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1285-1301, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:21:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10902-019-00128-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anik Debrot & Sebastian Siegler & Petra L. Klumb & Dominik Schoebi, 2018. "Daily Work Stress and Relationship Satisfaction: Detachment Affects Romantic Couples’ Interactions Quality," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(8), pages 2283-2301, December.
    2. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi & Jeremy Hunter, 2003. "Happiness in Everyday Life: The Uses of Experience Sampling," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 185-199, June.
    3. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    4. René Proyer & Willibald Ruch & Claudia Buschor, 2013. "Testing Strengths-Based Interventions: A Preliminary Study on the Effectiveness of a Program Targeting Curiosity, Gratitude, Hope, Humor, and Zest for Enhancing Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 275-292, March.
    5. Ragnhild Bang Nes & Espen Røysamb, 2017. "Happiness in Behaviour Genetics: An Update on Heritability and Changeability," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1533-1552, October.
    6. Carol Nickerson, 2007. "Theory/Analysis Mismatch: Comment on Fredrickson and Joiner’s (2002) Test of the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 537-561, December.
    7. Liselot Hudders & Mario Pandelaere, 2012. "The Silver Lining of Materialism: The Impact of Luxury Consumption on Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 411-437, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laurence Graillot, 2021. "Main well-being factors in tourism context : an application to active sport tourism [Principaux facteurs du bien-être dans le domaine du tourisme : Une application au cas du tourisme sportif actif]," Post-Print hal-03457468, HAL.
    2. Boris N. Nikolaev & Michael P. Lerman & Christopher J. Boudreaux & Brandon A. Mueller, 2023. "Self-Employment and Eudaimonic Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Problem- and Emotion-Focused Coping," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(6), pages 2121-2154, November.
    3. Jean-Denis Mathias & Nicolas Pellerin & Gustavo Carrero & Eric Raufaste & Michael Dambrun, 2024. "Running on the Hedonic Treadmill: A Dynamical Model of Happiness Based on an Approach–Avoidance Framework," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1-38, June.
    4. Eleftherios Giovanis, 2022. "The effects of international migration on well-being of natives and immigrants: evidence from Germany, Switzerland and the UK," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(6), pages 1-33, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dwight C. K. Tse & Jeanne Nakamura & Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 2022. "Flow Experiences Across Adulthood: Preliminary Findings on the Continuity Hypothesis," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2517-2540, August.
    2. Ryoo, Yuhosua & Sung, Yongjun & Chechelnytska, Inna, 2020. "What makes materialistic consumers more ethical? Self-benefit vs. other-benefit appeals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 173-183.
    3. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    5. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    6. Yi-Ching Hsieh & Hung-Chang Chiu & Yun-Chia Tang & Wei-Yun Lin, 2018. "Does Raising Value Co-creation Increase All Customers’ Happiness?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(4), pages 1053-1067, November.
    7. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    9. Roe, R.A., 2005. "Studying time in organizational behavior," Research Memorandum 046, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    10. Luke Butcher & Ian Phau & Min Teah, 2016. "Brand prominence in luxury consumption: Will emotional value adjudicate our longing for status?," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(6), pages 701-715, November.
    11. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    12. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    13. Anna Matysiak & Letizia Mencarini & Daniele Vignoli, 2016. "Work–Family Conflict Moderates the Relationship Between Childbearing and Subjective Well-Being," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 355-379, August.
    14. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    15. Hedin, Lena & Höjer, Ingrid & Brunnberg, Elinor, 2011. "Settling into a new home as a teenager: About establishing social bonds in different types of foster families in Sweden," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2282-2289.
    16. Zhang, Jing & Chen, Mingliang & Xie, Zhaohan & Zhuang, Jingyi, 2022. "Don't fall into exquisite poverty: The impact of mismatch between consumers and luxury brands on happiness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 298-309.
    17. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Goran Calic & Moren Lévesque & Anton Shevchenko, 2024. "On why women-owned businesses take more time to secure microloans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 917-938, October.
    20. Sirola, Nina, 2023. "Going beyond the call of duty under conditions of economic threat: Integrating life history and temporal dilemma perspectives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:21:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10902-019-00128-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.