David G. Myers

Who Is Happy

A flood of new studies explores peoples subjective well-being (SWB) Frequent positive affect, infrequent negative affect, and a global sense of satisfaction with life define high SWB These studies reveal that happiness and life satisfaction are similarly available to the young and the old, women and men, blacks and whites, the rich and the working-class Better clues to well-being come from knowing about a persons traits, close relationships, work experiences, culture, and religiosity We present the elements of an appraisal-based theory of happiness that recognizes the importance of adaptation, cultural world-view, and personal goals

The pursuit of happiness.

New research uncovers some anti-intuitive insights into how many people are happy--and why.

The Religion Paradox: If Religion Makes People Happy, Why Are So Many Dropping Out?

As we estimate here, 68% of human beings--4.6 billion people--would say that religion is important in their daily lives. Past studies have found that the religious, on average, have higher subjective well-being (SWB). Yet, people are rapidly leaving organized religion in economically developed nations where religious freedom is high. Why would people leave religion if it enhances their happiness? After controlling for circumstances in both the United States and world samples, we found that religiosity is associated with slightly higher SWB, and similarly so across four major world religions. The associations of religiosity and SWB were mediated by social support, feeling respected, and purpose or meaning in life. However, there was an interaction underlying the general trend such that the association of religion and well-being is conditional on societal circumstances. Nations and states with more difficult life conditions (e.g., widespread hunger and low life expectancy) were much more likely to be highly religious. In these nations, religiosity was associated with greater social support, respect, purpose or meaning, and all three types of SWB. In societies with more favorable circumstances, religiosity is less prevalent and religious and nonreligious individuals experience similar levels of SWB. There was also a person-culture fit effect such that religious people had higher SWB in religious nations but not in nonreligious nations. Thus, it appears that the benefits of religion for social relationships and SWB depend on the characteristics of the society.

Group-Induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior

Publisher Summary The chapter explains the group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. The chapter highlights the concept of group polarization with four observations. First, remember that group polarization refers to a strengthening of the dominant tendency, not to increased cleavage and diversity within a group. Second, it denotes an exaggeration of the initial mean tendency derived from data averaged over groups (this includes between-subject designs where baseline choices made alone are compared with choices made by other people following group discussion of group decision.) Note, third, that the polarization hypothesis is a more precise prediction than group extremization, which denotes movement away from neutrality regardless of direction. Finally, group polarization can occur without individual group members becoming more polarized. This could easily happen if a sharply split group of people converged on a decision that was slightly more polar than their initial average. In addition, future study of group interaction seems, therefore, to have the potential of developing a creative synthesis between theory and its social usefulness, thus making this an area that fulfills Kurt Lewins vision for social psychology.

Discussion Effects on Racial Attitudes.

We predicted that discussion would enhance dominant group values, leading to increased polarization between homogeneously composed groups of high-, medium-, and low-prejudice high school subjects. In an experimental condition, group members made individual attitude judgments, discussed them, and remade judgments. Control groups discussed irrelevant materials before responding again to the attitude items. As predicted, discussion of the racial attitude items with others having similar attitudes significantly increased the gap between high- and low-prejudice groups.

Group-Induced Polarization in Simulated Juries

Group-induced shift effects observed on other response dimensions were extended to a simulated jury setting. Subjects first responded to eight hypothetical traffic cases which varied in the implication of guilt (high or low), then discussed half of these cases (two high guilt and two low guilt) in small groups, and finally responded again to all eight cases. As predicted, the simulated jury deliberations polarized the mean judgment of discussed cases. After discussing low guilt cases, subjects were, on the average, more extreme in their judgments of innocence and more lenient in recommended punishment, and after discussing high guilt cases shifted toward harsher judgments of guilt and punishment. These effects were not observed for cases which were not discussed.

Informational influence in group discussion

Abstract An informational influence explanation of group-induced shift on choice dilemma items was examined by experimental manipulation and by a mathematical model based on information weighing assumptions. Although the exchange of arguments in an interactive discussion context produced significant response change, passive reading of arguments did not. Examination of the model revealed that at a molar level the mean model prediction for an item corresponded closely with the mean shift observed on that item following discussion. At a more molecular level, the informational model failed to predict the magnitude of specific group shifts on particular items. A suggestion as to how the informational influence explanation could be refined to accommodate these findings was taken from theory and research on the role of cognitive learning and cognitive rehearsal in attitude change.

Enhancement of Dominant Risk Tendencies in Group Discussion

Much recent research indicates that discussion predictably affects responses to choice-dilemma items. In the present experiment, 12 choice-dilemma items were discussed to consensus by 40 female groups of varying size (2, 3, 5, or 7 members). Group size did not significantly affect shift scores. Over all groups, the mean of initial risk taking on an item was an excellent predictor of the mean amount of shift that item elicited (r = –.89), a finding consistent with certain models of group decision making as well as with the idea that discussion arguments enhance dominant values. Further analyses of the present and past research indicated that the group decision making models could not account for the observed shifts.

Discussion arguments, information about others’ responses, and risky shift

The discussion-arguments and information-exchange explanations of the risky-, cautious-shift phenomenon were tested in three conditions. An information-exchange-only condition provided mere exposure to others’ initial responses, a discussion-only condition elicited discussion without information exchange, and a discussion-plus-information-exchange condition combined the two elements. Significant shift was observed in each of the three conditions. Other analyses examined the relationship between perceived relative riskiness and shift and between Ss’ aptitude scores and initial tendencies in the valued direction. The data generally supported the discussion arguments explanation.

The Social Psychology of Sustainability

The earth cannot support humanitys increasing population and consumption. Concerned scientists and citizens are therefore wondering how we might work toward a sustainable, survivable human future. Sustainability involves increased technological efficiency and agricultural productivity, but also incentives and attitudes that moderate consumption. Social psychology contributes to changing attitudes and behavior with evidence that a) materialism exacts psychic as well as environmental costs, and b) economic growth has failed to improve human morale. Two principles-the adaptation level phenomenon and social comparison-help explain why materialism and increasing affluence fail to satisfy.