Chapter-1

Happiness: Its Psycho-social correlates

1

Chapter-1

Happiness: Its Psycho-social correlates

Introduction

“Well, O Narada, I tell you, nothing can be done unless it is propelled by happiness.

Everywhere you will find happiness is the object of every kind of aspiration, activity,

desire or enterprise. You will find, prior to everything conceivable, there is the presence

of happiness. Everyone, irrespective of the character of one’s individuality, tries to be,

to act and to conduct oneself in different ways, because of this happiness. You must

know what happiness is. It is this that is the propelling force behind everything in

creation,^ says Sanatkumara.” -Krishnananda, The Chhandogya Upanishad, (1984)

Happiness is one of the fundamental driving forces of human beings underlying most of

their actions and aspirations (Krishnananda, The Chhandogya Upanishad,1984).

Since the beginning of time, man has strived to understand and achieve happiness.

Human beings essentially have a happy disposition but do experience suffering and grief

in their lifetime.

Despite all adversities, the hopeful human being sets out in search of happiness which to

him is the liberating light at the end of the metaphysical tunnel. All societies and cultures

together adhere to this utopian ideology and cherish and aspire for it as well. Happiness

has been viewed as the driving force behind all human activities (Diener, 1984). Both

feelings of happiness and suffering are felt within a context whether economical,

psychological, and social or spiritual, in which man completes his journey from ‗being‘

to ‗becoming‘. Therefore, the holistic approach to find out the most desired quest of life

is to take in to account the being with his entire existential context.

2

The present research is an effort to define and understand the meaning of happiness and

the psycho-social correlates which contribute to conceptualizing a happy life and how to

become happy.

The world today, has a knowledge bank, due to information and communication

technology and affects our day today life. India enjoys the modern amenities that come

with globalization but still struggles in coming to terms with contemporary values

replacing Indian culture which is said to be the source of ultimate happiness.

The new generation enjoys the materialistic comfort at the cost of positive mental health

and sustainable enduring happiness. Consumerism, materialism, unhealthy life style, cut -

throat competition, and lust for endless sensory desire satisfaction tend to erode personal

wellbeing and sense of happiness. Materialism has been linked with feelings of sadness,

depression, anxiety, frustration, loneliness and unhappiness along with severe life style

disease like hypertension, diabetes and psycho-somatic disorders among youth. In

addition, ranks quite high in the number of youth suicide cases every year. Such dire

circumstances call for immediate action to be taken to stress the importance of happiness

and its role in shaping the lives of youth.

In this chapter, concepts, the review of literature and objectives are presented. The

concepts are happiness, psycho-social correlates as, hope, perceived social support and

mode of self construal, followed by in-depth exploration of meaning, various

concomitants, and strategies of happiness.

HAPPINESS: Definition and meaning

Happiness is a broad multifaceted concept and defined differently across time and

culture. Recent research has increasingly focused on happiness (Cheng & Furnham 2003;

Diener 2006). Many terms have been used to label well-being, including happiness,

objective well-being, subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and life satisfaction. Of these

terms, happiness is the most popular, both in research and in lay usage.

3

In Merriam Webster dictionary (1995), happiness is defined as a ―state of well-being

and contentment or a pleasurable or satisfying experience‖. Argyle, Martin, and

Crossland, (1989), defined happiness as a predominance of positive over negative affect

and as satisfaction with life as a whole. Veenhoven (2010) stated that happiness is the

―overall appreciation of one‘s life as a whole‖ and consists of both an affective and a

cognitive evaluation of life. The affective component determines how a person feels,

while the cognitive component is related to satisfaction.

Although the scientific study of happiness and subjective well-being (SWB) has thrived

over the last three decades but the concept of happiness has still been elusive. Ed Diener

(1984) suggested the scientific term SWB instead of happiness which has much

ambiguity. SWB is defined as a subjective evaluation of life as a whole, with the

presence of pleasant emotions, and the relative absence of unpleasant emotions. Although

social sciences and particularly Psychology have focused on SWB, it is often used

interchangeably with the term ‗happiness‘. The happiness however has not been

examined in terms of its meaning (Lyubomirsky & Ross, 1997).

The concept of happiness in ancient times centered around good luck and fortune.

McMahon (2006) argued that the Greek term ―eudaimonia” is the combination of ‗eu‟

(good) and ‗daimon‟ (god, spirit, demon), ―eudaimonia” thus contains within it a notion

of fortune. McMahon, stated that ―happiness is what happens to us, and over that we have

no control‖ (p. 19). Thus, happiness is something that goes beyond human agency,

controlled mainly by luck and the gods. Currently use of ―pursuit‖ with happiness was

focused on agency.

It is useful to consider how ―happiness‖ is used differentially across nations, cultures, and

world (Lu, 2001; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). Collectivism is associated with the external

sense of control (Triandis, 1995), that‘s why collectivistic nations might develop a more

luck-based concept of happiness than individualistic ones. Thus East Asian definitions of

happiness center on luck and good fortune. There is no consensus among researchers

4

about the definition, of the term ―happiness.‖ Uchida and Ogihara (2012) found

considerable cultural differences in how lay people understand happiness, its predictors

and its relation with social changes. Very few studies focused on linguistic and semantic

features of the term ―happiness‖ as well (Wierzbicka, 2009; Oishi et al., 2013).

Presently, ―happiness‖ which is used as synonymously with life satisfaction and

Subjective Well- Being (SWB, Kahneman et al., 1999), includes the cognitive component

of life satisfaction and the affective component of positive emotions (Veenhoven, 2012;

Diener et al., 2013). Psychological Well-Being (PWB) (Ryff, 1989) however focuse on

autonomy, positive relations, environmental mastery, self acceptance, purpose in life, and

personal growth. Eudaimonic Well-Being (Waterman, 2008) stresses on self-

expressiveness, development of inner potentials, and self-actualization. Rojas and

Veenhoven, (2013), argued that heterogeneous use of the term ‗happiness‘ is conducive

to conceptual confusion and contradictory findings undermine the credibility of the

happiness research despite the positive correlations among these related constructs.

According to Andrews and Withey (1978) components of happiness are, ―positive

emotion, life satisfaction, and the absence of negative emotions or psychological

distress‖. However, there may be other components as well, such as self-fulfillment;

purpose in life and personal growth (Ryff, 1989) .Thus, happiness could be described as

an internal experience of a positive state of mind, which can be induced through various

means. In sum, the components of happiness are positive cognition, social commitment,

positive affect, sense of control, physical fitness, satisfaction with self and mental

alertness. Therefore, it can be concluded that the focus of happiness is on the

intrapersonal component which is, internal evaluation and contentment. Social

commitment is the only interpersonal component of happiness.

Clearly happiness research till date has been focused on individualistic values, so it

remains to be seen whether the Western conception of happiness, can be universally

applied regardless of cultural variations as culture and values could influence the concept

of happiness and its perceived sources.

5

Some cultural dimensions that may influence the concept of happiness have been

empirically identified (Uchida et al., 2004, Joshanloo, 2014; Ramakrishna Rao, 2014).

However, Hofstede‘s (1980) construct of individualism/collectivism is used frequently in

comparison to Western and East Asian contexts ( Uchida et al., 2004; Ford et al., 2015).

Value systems also play a role in defining happiness. Welzel and Inglehart (2010)

proposed the Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World, based on two categories:

Traditional vs. Secular-rational values (according to the centrality attributed to religion,

traditional family structure, deference to authority and national pride), and Survival vs.

Self-expression values (according to the emphasis on economic and physical security vs.

self-expression, subjective well-being, and interpersonal trust). Uchida, (2011) also found

that in Western countries happiness is conceptualized as a positive emotional valence

while in East Asian it is a mixture of positive and negative emotions. In the

individualistic United States, positive emotions are related to independence and personal

achievement (Kitayama et al., 2006), while in collectivistic countries emotions are

connected to relations, such as interpersonal engagement (Kitayama et al., 2000; Ford et

al., 2015).

Hardin et al.( 2014) stated that most of the studies on happiness have taken on

quantitative approach, from the methodological point of view, which makes it

challenging to capture cultural diversity. Further, Uchida et al.( 2004), and Mathews,(

2012) argued that most measurement scales, developed by researchers who are trained

in a specific academic contexts, may be biased toward western individualistic notions of

happiness. Moreover, these instruments do not provide information on lay people‘s view

of happiness. In an attempt to fill this gap, a cross-national study was conducted among

adults to explore lay definitions of happiness through open-ended questions with the help

of ‗Eudaimonic and Hedonic Happiness Investigation—EHHI ( Delle Fave et al., 2011a

).It was found that interpersonal relationships at both family and social level emerged as

the most frequent contextual definitions of happiness while the most frequent

psychological definition was inner harmony, with components like emotional stability,

6

LAP feelings of serenity and contentment, inner peace, acceptance, balance, and

equipoise. Dambrun et al.(2012) also conducted a study in a Western individualistic

context and found inner harmony as a conceptualization of authentic-durable happiness

in contrast to fluctuating happiness. Kjell, (2011) argued that inner harmony is an

expression of sustainable well-being, focusing on LAP and balance, rather than HAP and

achievement. Studies investigating interpersonal and social harmony in East Asian

contexts (Wang et al., 2014; Sawaumi et al., 2015) found that harmony does exist. At the

psychological level, balance and detachment as positive inner states also investigated by

Indian scholars.(Pande and Naidu, 1992; Salagame, 2004).) Happiness was identified as

inner harmony, balanced and positive connectedness at the psychological level while

positive and harmonious family and social relationships at the contextual level. The

concept of integrated self (Kuhl et al., 2015) and the balanced interactive model (Wong,

2011) supported these findings. Relational and connectivity models of well-being

(Wissing, 2014), the convoy model (Antonucci et al., 2014); the relational and situated

assemblage perspective (Atkinson, 2013); the multi-level well-being model (Ng and

Fisher, 2013), the model of self-expansion through relationships (Aron and Aron, 2012);

and the construct of interdependent happiness (Hitokoto and Uchida, 2014) are also

consistent with this finding. The adoption of interconnectedness could foster an authentic

bio-psycho-social view of health.

On the basis of these studies it can concluded that individual understanding of

happiness across cultures is needed. Further, investigation of lay people‘s perspective on

the definition of happiness is vital for researches to capture the deep understanding of

happiness with their rooted cultural context. It is also necessary to understand the role of

socio-demographic variables in conceptualization of happiness.

Historical Perspective of Happiness:

Fellows (1966), stated that the concept of happiness was dominated by the thinking of

two philosophies the first was ancient Greek philosophers and the second was

Utilitarianism of the nineteenth century. McMahon(2008), argued that in the Greek

7

period there were four conceptualizations of the good life. The first pure hedonistic

Aristippus idea was that happiness is the sum of be seen in Benthom‘s utilitarianism

(Bentham,1948) and Kahneman‘s theory of objective happiness

(Kahneman,1999;Kaheman, Wakker &Sarin,1997)as well.

Second, a softer hedonistic Epicurus argued that life should not be lived to maximize

momentary pleasure but to maximize pleasure in life as a whole. Today this idea is quite

consistent with the concept of life satisfaction (Diener,2006) and Kahneman‘s revised

theory of hedonic happiness (Kahneman, Schkade,Fishler,Krueger& Krilla, 2010).

A third position was Stoicism from Greek philosophy which argued that happiness is

secured by detachment from emotional life. The fourth approach to happiness comes

from Aristotle,that good life follows from the exercise of virtuous activities reflected in

eudemonic well-being.

Psychological science of happiness begins with the scientific study of well-being.

Psychologist George Van Ness Dearborn‘s book ‗The Emotion of Joy‘ about

psychophysiology and psychobiology of positive emotions, published in 1899 was a

milestone study.

This brief history points out how modern conception of happiness builds on philosophical

thinking but as a scientific discipline, happiness research was not born until the end of

1950s.When Norman Bradburn wanted to publish a book on happiness in the 1960s, `he

was advised not to use the term ‗happiness‘ in the title due to the unscientific nature of

the concept (Bradburn,1969). A milestone was reached when Gurin and his colleagues set

out to ask a representative sample of the USA explicitly about their overall happiness in

life (Gurin, Veroff& Feld,1960). Then Cantril,(1965) surveyed a broder sample of

nations. His concepts were those of human concerns and life satisfaction, thus

introducing the evaluative dimension to happiness studies. The combination of good

feelings and favorable evaluations emerged in the concept of subjective well-being. In

8

addition, the earliest review on, ―avowed happiness‖ by Wilson (1967) was published in

1980 also.

Western Conceptualizations of Happiness:

At present, there are two dominant approaches to understanding human happiness and

well being: Hedonic and Eudaimonic perspectives. Eudemonia is focused on the

development of the best in oneself and act in accordance with one‘s true self and deeper

principles, while Hedonic is mainly focused on pleasure and enjoyment, and the absence

of pain and discomfort.

Eudaimonia is a multifaceted concept and which is better translated as a flourishment

and excellence. According to Ryan, Huta,and Deci (2008) eudaimonia is a form of

wellbeing and a way of acting and thinking. Aristotle defined eudaimonia as active

behavior that exhibits excellence and virtue in accordance with reason and contemplation,

while Plato focused on only moral virtues and reason.

Aristippus argued that pleasure is the only good and pain is the only evil, regardless of

their sources and also emphasized immediate physical gratification (Fourth century).

Kant (Eighteenth century) stressed on living in accordance with moral obligation or duty

that is universally valid. While hedonic Hobbes‘s (Seventeenth century) emphasized that

a good life involves maximizing personal pleasure and minimizing personal pain.

In modern psychology, the distinction between eudaimonic and hedonic views of

wellbeing is also apparent. Maslow (1970) focused on self-actualization, and need for

strive for something greater in life. Jung (1993) argued that individuation is a process of

becoming oneself fully autonomous, aware and well integrated. Allport defined

psychological wellbeing as maturity which includes expressing one‘s true self, seeing

things realistically, relating constructively and having a personalized conscience, while

Rogers (1961) stressed on being fully functioning and thus using all of one‘s capacities

when appropriate, including joy and suffering.

9

Freud‘s (1920) theory stressed on hedonic satisfaction. According to him, happiness is a

balance between pleasure and pain. Pleasure principle focused on tension-reduction and

pleasures itself while being balanced by his reality principle, by learning to accept pain

and postponed gratification because of the exigencies of reality.

Self determination theory is related to eudaimonia and described autonomy as a central

cause of wellbeing (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Autonomy includes being true to oneself,

having different aspects of oneself well integrated and endorsing one‘s activities rather

than being controlled by external or internal pressures. Researchers have shown that

autonomy relates positivity to persistence, cognitive flexibility, self-actualization, vitality,

and a wide range of other wellbeing indices, while negatively to extrinsic matters such as

money, material possessions, image and status.

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed the concept of flow at a vital determinant of

happiness. Flow is a state experienced when one skillfully engages in a challenging

activity, deeply immerged and fully absorbed such that nothing else seems to matter from

the outside and even time seems to stand still. During flow, one does not view oneself

happy, yet only letter state reported as a wonderful experience. Csikszentmihalyi stated

that flow fosters personal evolution because the challenging activity stretches a person‘s

abilities, and promotes positive affect, creativity, concentration, learning, meaning and

purpose in life and a sense of transcendence or connection with a greater whole.

Ryff (1989) proposed her conception of eudaimonia as psychological well-being which

includes personal growth, purpose in life, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive

relations with others, and self acceptance. She defined psychological well-being as

objectively realizing one‘s potential and flourishing in the face of life‘s existential

challenges.

Vitterso, Soholt, Helland, Thoresen& Roysomb,(2010), stressed that eudaimonia relates

to personal growth and openness to experience, while hedonic is life satisfaction on trait

level. At the state level, eudaimonia is associated with interest, engagement and challenge

10

while hedonic is related to pleasure, positive affect, low negative effect, pleasantness and

easiness. Further, eudaimonia promotes change, growth and accommodation while

hedonic regulates stability, assimilation, and return to homeostasis. In addition,

neurological mechanisms like dopamine systems underling interest and novelty-seeking

may be related to eudaimonia while the endogenous opioid systems that underling

pleasure and regulation of homeostatic process may be linked with hedonic. Hutta and

Ryan(2010), stated that eudaimonia is related to an elevating experience (awe, inspiration

and transcendence), a sense of meaning, feeling connected with oneself and a sense of

competence while hedonic is related to positive affect and care freeness and to lower

affect.

Further, Hedonic psychologist focused on the culturally relativistic perspective on

happiness and follow the standard social science model (SSSM, Barkow, Cosmides &

Tooby,1992). According to SSSM, ―individuals were born tabula rasa and acquire

important cultural values, beliefs, and norms for appropriate behavior through

socialization and well-being results from attainment of culturally valued goals‖.

Psychologists posit that fully functioning is an objective condition that involves living in

accordance with one‘s true nature or daimon and is experienced subjectively as personal

expressiveness (Waterman, 1993) and vitality (Rayan&Frederick, 1997).

Contrary to the individualistic perspective of happiness, Keyes (1998) posited his ideas

on social well-being and defined it as positive ‗appraisal of one‘s circumstance and

functioning in society‘. He further investigated five dimensions of social well-being:

social acceptance, social integration, social contribution, social coherence and social

actualization. This is based on the assumption that society as a whole has a collective

purpose and each member of the society has a definite role and responsibility in realizing

its purpose.

Eastern conceptualizations of Happiness:

The current understanding of happiness is not culturally informed. Lu, (2001) argued

that It has been largely felt that the existing conceptualization and the measurements of

11

happiness are based on Euro-American cultural perspectives and largely ignores the

Eastern perspectives. While, Lu and Gilmour( 2004) emphasized that there is consensus

in the view that the individual and social oriented societies have different

conceptualizations of happiness. This section therefore is mainly focused on

Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sufism thought about happiness.

Bhawuk, (2010), stated that a spiritual version of happiness exists in Hinduism.

According to this philosophy, true joy comes from contentment and peace of mind

brought about by constantly acknowledging that Supreme Being (Brahman) dwells in

everything. The factors that contribute greatly to peace of mind are, giving up all

illegitimate desires, avoiding greed, and detachment from transient and material objects,

egotism, and anger. Hinduism conceptualizes happiness on the basis of virtues and

righteousness rather than hedonism (Shamasundar,2008). The concept of ―DHARMA‖ is

very important in Hinduism. Dharma is the principle that governs the universe, society,

and individual lives. The whole world and human affairs are controlled and operated by

Dharma (Kim,1973; Narayanan,2004). Younger (1972), stated that humankind‘s role in

the Hindu worldview is to support this universal cosmic order. In general, virtue

(personal or social, material or spiritual) in Hinduism amounts to acting in accordance

with dharma (Salagame,2003). Paranjpe (1988), stated that cardinal virtues of Hinduism

include gratitude, non-violence, limitless compassion, generosity and controlling the

mind so that it can firmly rest on the object of interest. Shamasundar (2008) explained

that our acts when accordance with these virtues lead to a state of harmony between the

inside and outer world.

Buddhists emphasized that self-renunciation leads to limitless love and compassion, and

eradication of destructive states of mind such as anger and hatred (Mitchell and

Wiseman, 2003). According to Buddhism, happiness should not be found outside in

material gains, bodily pleasures, and even in interpersonal relationships, but in the heart

(Webb, 2012) through spiritual training. According to Dalai Lama, ‗‗the highest

happiness is when one reaches liberation, at which point there is no more suffering.

12

That‘s genuine, lasting happiness. True happiness relates to the mind and heart‘‘ (Webb,

2012, p. 34). Also, the Buddhist version of well-being is based on mental balance and

contentment (Wallace and Shapiro,2006) Happiness also depends on the understanding

that we are one with others, and brings peace and harmony into the lives of others

(Mitchell and Wiseman,2003, p. 6).

By taking on other people‘s suffering, it is found that we might be able to destroy the

cause of our own suffering (see Mitchell and Wiseman, 2003 p. 17). All this shows that

the ultimate goal in Buddhism is not individual happiness, but liberating all beings from

suffering.. According Dalai Lama, ‗‗by enduring suffering, you can purify your past

negative actions and generate determination to achieve liberation‘‘ (Mitchell and

Wiseman, 2003, p. 15–16).

The Taoist ideology is focused on a genuine and simple way of life (Chen, 2006b).

Taoism stresses that all things exist in polarity, with the two poles complementing and

supporting each other (Chen, 2006b). Acceptance of both poles of such as happiness

with unhappiness, success with failure, leads to happiness. Taoism advocates accepting

the cosmic pattern of change with equanimity and values contentment and peace of mind.

(Lee et al., 2013).

Zhang and Veenhoven (2008) argued that in Confucianism, a happy life is not

differentiated from a good life such that, a good life is understood in terms of being

humane (Sundararajan 2005). This thought is focused on social and interpersonal virtues

essential for internal and social harmony. In Confucianism, social and family

relationships are highly valued and harmony is an important goal of both personal and

social life (Ip,2009) In sum, Confucianism emphasizes on a fully functioning family with

compassionate bonds among members, cultivating internal satisfaction, and facing

hardship and adversity with equanimity. Confucius says ‗‗…humane men do not seek to

preserve their lives at the expense of humanity; rather, they give their lives to attain

humanity‘‘ (The analects, 15.9, Huang 1997, p. 153).

13

According to Frager, (1999), a basic concept in Sufi psychology is the heart, where

gnosis and spiritual knowledge reside. Sufis think that ‗‗The secret of the existence of the

individual as well as of the whole cosmos lies in one thing, and that is balance‘‘ (Khan

and Witteveen,1999, p. 25). Thus, Sufi conceptualization of happiness is a combination

of inner harmony, intuition, contentment, self-transcendence, and union with the Divine.

Cultural perspective of happiness

Lu & Shih (1997) views culture as a major force in building the concept of happiness.

Since meanings and concepts are molded by culture (Bruner, 1990), it is essential to

explore what people think about happiness in reference to world of meanings and values

construed by a culture.

Kitayama and Markus,( 2000) argued that the western conception of SWB should not be

superimposed on other cultures (already given above). It is also important to know that

members of different cultures may hold diverse views about happiness, it‘s definitions,

nature, meaning and ways to strive for SWB. By influencing SWBs cultures shape and

form the self also. Different self views such as independent self vs. interdependent self

may emerge in a time of cultural fusion related to both individual and socially oriented

conceptions of SWB (Lu et al., 2001b). Lu et al.(2001a) also found that values closely

related to the core of collectivism, such as ‗‗social integration‘‘ and ‗‗human-

heartedness‘‘ led to greater happiness for the Chinese but not the British.

Suh‘s (2000, p. 63) metaphor of ‗‗self as the hyphen between culture and subjective

well-being‘‘, explained that the construction and participation of self in social institutions

and the daily lived world, may hold the key to understanding the meaning of happiness in

various culture systems.

Such a view of the person as a bounded, coherent, stable, autonomous, free entity is what

Markus and Kitayama call the independent self (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).. In

contrast the Asian view of the self is as a connected, fluid, flexible, committed being,

14

bound to others are called the interdependent self (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Asian

societies are also characterized in terms of Collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1994).

Role obligation is a core characteristic of Asian SWB. Consequently, fulfillment of role

obligations in interdependent social relationships, creation and maintenance of

interpersonal harmony, striving to promote the welfare and prosperity of the collective

(e.g. family) become core issues. Further, it is found that both self-esteem and self-

consistency are less powerful predictors of SWB in Eastern collectivist cultures (Diener

and Diener, 1995; Suh, 2000). Socially oriented Asian conceptions of SWB discussion

about a dialectical balance in the case of happiness/unhappiness: ‗‗Happiness is

dependent on unhappiness, while unhappiness is hidden in happiness‘‘ (Lu, 1998).

It may be concluded that striving for personal happiness a core feature of individually

oriented conceptions of SWB, whereas role obligations and dialectical reservation are

core features of socially oriented conceptions.

Although both Western and Eastern cultures recognize that independence from others and

interdependence with others are essential human tendencies or needs, these needs are

emphasized differently in the two cultural traditions (Skiner,1995).

Markus and Kitayama(1991) pointed out that the two self systems could coexist within an

individual. Evidence for the existence of contrasting values has also been reported from

Eastern cultures like India, Mishra (1994) found that Indians showed a disposition for

both individualistic and collectivistic values and young, highly educated and urban

people tended to be less collectivist. Taken together this empirical evidence supports the

coexistence model and is against the linear model of modernity ( Berry,1994,

Sinha&Tripathi,1994)

Western Theoretical Perspectives on Happiness

Many theories of happiness have been proposed to understand the multifaceted nature of

happiness, like, adaptation/habituation, social comparison and hedonic treadmill theories.

15

According to adaptation or habit formation theory, the utility one derives from a given

set of goods is affected by getting used to it and by comparisons with one's past

experience (Brickman & Campbell, 1971; Lucas, 2005;Veenhoven, 1993). Thus, the

person comes back to his original level or set-point of happiness. The social comparison

or interdependent preferences theory points out that the utility created by one's having a

given amount of a goods depends partly on the amount of that good that others have (Ng,

1996; Smith, Diener, & Wedell, 1989). Similarly, built on automatic adaptation model,

the hedonic treadmill (Brickman & Campbell, 1971) theory also suggests that increased

pleasure from a set of experience means the next experience should be just as effective in

inducing the same level of happiness (Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2006). (May not be

required) The good life is an outcome of an individual‘s virtues and signature strengths in

activities he passionately gets involved in and enjoys. A meaningful life results from

individuals actively using their signature strengths and virtues in contributing to

community for a greater good, such as parenting and developing friendships. The

broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) stressed that positive emotions

broaden an individual‘s thoughts and build enduring resources. Ryan and Deci's (2000)

self-determination theory discussed happiness and psychological growth in relation to the

fulfillment of autonomy, competence and relatedness needs. Flow theory has already

been discussed at length in earlier section of the chapter and may sum a little repetition

here. While Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) flow theory is described a possible pathway to

happiness well-being beyond a pleasure state. Flow is the state of engagement, optimal

happiness and peak experience that occurs when an individual is absorbed in a

demanding and intrinsically motivating challenge.

The genetic predisposition and personality trait theory says that happiness is stable and

consistent across time and situations because individuals have an innate or acquired

tendency to appraise events and situations in a The conceptual referent theory of

happiness, proposed by Rojas (2005), stressed that a person's conceptual referent for a

happy life plays a role in the judgment of her life and in the appraisal of her happiness.

16

He also stated that people can be equally happy besides having different conceptual

referent; hence, no conceptual referent can be considered as superior in the sense of

providing greater happiness. However development of theoretical framework is continues

as the discipline is still very young. However, the main focus of analysis is always the

individual and his subjectivity.

Carol Ryffs (1989) theory of shifting perspective from satisfaction with life to sense of

meaning in life, stressed on human development and existential challenges of life. In a

slightly more social-orientated approach to Diener‘s, she also includes ‗environmental

mastery‘, among other dimensions of psychological well-being. Environmental mastery

pertains to the individual‘s capacity to actively choose and change the context and also to

make it more suitable to one‘s psychic and psychological make-up (Ryff, 1989).

Corey Keyes (1998), by departing from a individualistic approach, grounded his theory of

well-being in a social perspective. Keyes proposed five dimensions of ‗social well-

being‘, that is: social integration, social contribution, social coherence, social

actualization, and social acceptance. However, despite its relative social nature, Keyes‘s

model is still overly based on people‘s perception of their state of well-being as well as

their capacity for adaptation and integration into society. Due to its limitations the theory

of social well-being still fails to achieve its goal of defining the nature of well-being in

social terms and overcome the individual level of analysis.

Following the same line of inquiry, Ryan and Deci ( 2002) proposed an integrative model

of motivational determinants of happiness and self-realization, which is based on the

theory of basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The

self-determination theory (SDT), posits that both the content of a goal one pursues and

the reasons why it is pursued, can influence one‘s well-being. Building on it, social and

contextual conditions are responsible for either enhancing or hindering human growth

through supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness both for intrinsic and non

intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, it must be noted that the primary

focus of the SDT theory is always the well-being of individuals and therefore context is

still seen only as an external agent of individual change.

17

Seligman‘s (2011) theory of happiness focused on Positive Emotions, Engagement,

Meaning Relationships and Achievements. This theory of happiness and well-being

focused on multilevel perspective, which includes: Positive experiences and enduring

psychological traits at the individual level, positive relationships at the meso-level, and

positive institutions at the organization and macro level (Seligman, 2002).

Furthermore Ruut Veenhoven‘s Four Qualities of Life Model stressed on good living

conditions and opportunities provided by the environment. In his model, Veenhoven

defines the environment livability, to which provisions and requirements fit with the

needs and capacities of its citizens, whereas ‗life-ability‘, as a inner capacity with which

each individual is endowed, or ―how well we are equipped to cope with the problems of

life‖ (Veenhoven, 2013, p. 200).

Table 1.1. The Four Qualities of Life. Source: (Veenhoven, 2013, p. 204)

18

Veenhoven‘s Four Qualities of Life model keeps together the subjectivity of individuals

with the feature of contexts. Yet, this model does not explain the strategies that would

best equip individuals and society at large to achieve happiness and well-being of

individuals.

In sum, it is concluded that most nations today are deeply concerned with the happiness

and well-being of people and include it in national policy. Therefore the need of the hour

is an alternative theoretical perspective which should be focused on individual as well as

collective and contextual factors as key determinants of happiness.

Indian perspective on Happiness:

Several perspectives on happiness exist in Indian scriptures and literature. The

conceptualization of the nature of happiness and well-being primarily depend on the

worldview one holds about the nature of reality and human nature. Underlying any

concept of quality of life, happiness and wellbeing, is a worldview which provides a

perspective on the nature of man, his place in the universe, and on the nature of the

universe. Within Indian society we have both material and spiritual worldview leading to

different perspectives such as hedonic, collective and transcendental (Kiran Kumar,

2003, 2004).

In ancient India, around 600 B.C, There are existed a materialist view according to which

fulfillment of sensory desires is the only criterion of happiness and well being. The

extreme protagonist of this extreme view was Brhaspathi, also known as Lokāyata (which

literally means ‗one who goes the worldly way‘) and as Chārvāka (‗sweet-tongued‘)

suggested that pleasure is the ultimate aim of life. This view is also known as Chārvāka

Philosophy and as Lokāyata (Raju, 1992).

Chārvāka philosophy rejected the notion of God, dharma (values), law of karma and

ethical laws and the notion of transcendent consciousness/Self, Ātman. According to this

view Ihika bhoga (material enjoyment) is the criterion of happiness and satisfaction,

19

which involves maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. This is like the hedonic

perspective on happiness and well-being and one is reminded of the famous statement of

Chārvāka: ―rnam krtva grtam pibheth”, which means a person, should drink ghee (and

enjoy) even if one has to take credit! (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004). This materialistic view

was uprooted from Indian soil because our rishis explored the spiritual dimensions and

prayed for the happiness of all - sarve santu sukhinaha, sarve santu nirāmaya, sarve

bhadrāni pashyantu, mā kaschid dukhabhāgbhavet (let everyone be happy, let everyone

be relaxed, let everyone perceive good, and let not any one suffer from pain).

According to the transcendental perspective, realization of oneness between Atman and

Brahman was viewed as liberation or moksha, the highest good and the highest purpose

of human existence. Atman regarded as satya and nitya ( true and permanent) and as a

way of escaping all kinds of sufferings and a source of permanent bliss (ananda). True

wellbeing (swāsthya) and welfare (kalyāna) of one and all lies in ‗non-dual

consciousness‘, where there is no difference between self and the other. Further,

transcendental view is rooted in all universal vision, which aspires for the well being of

everyone in the universe. This vision is the essence of Vedic and Upanishadic traditions

of India. According to transcendent perspective Ānanda and stitaprajnatva are the major

characteristics of happiness and well-being. (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004).

The collectivist perspective which lies somewhere between the hedonistic and the

transcendent perspectives is socially oriented and governed by the concept of dharma.

The concept of purushārtha, denotes the goals of human existence, includes, pursuit of

desires (kāma), pursuit of wealth (artha), pursuit of values (dharma) and pursuit of

liberation (moksha) (Kiran Kumar, 2003).

Upanishadic sages understood ananda (bliss), as the original condition of human beings

and equated it with ‗pure consciousness‘ or transcendental Self (Ātman). However, a

series of coverings or sheaths, kosha, obstruct the experience of this original condition.

These sheaths are five in number viz., annamaya kosha, prānamaya kosha, manomaya

20

kosha, vijnānamaya kosha, and ānandamaya kosha. Annamaya is the grossest of the

sheaths; being constituted of food which is physical in nature and thus refers to physical

body. The Prānamaya refers to the vital force. Manomaya refers to mental functions we

study in psychology. Vijnānamaya refers to intuitive faculty. Ānandamaya refers to that

intrinsic condition of blissfulness. Within the framework of the concepts of kosha, our

happiness and wellbeing are ultimately a matter of accessing ānandamaya kosha, which

is blissful in itself. The different concepts of happiness and wellbeing discussed are

related to different sheaths or self-sense. Annamaya kosha -trpti (satisfaction of sensual

pleasures). Prānamaya and manomaya kosha - harsha (excitement associated with some

events); ullāsa (feeling of pleasantness associated with the experience of natural beauty, a

good breeze, etc.); santosha (being pleased by some interpersonal interaction).

Vijnānamaya kosha - ānanda (moments of bliss). Ānandamaya kosha - ānandamaya

(pervaded by bliss). people should transcend the limitations of the annamaya,

pranamaya and manomaya kosha and the associated limited self-definitions and move to

intrinsically positive states and experience ānanda and shānti (Kiran Kumar, 2003)

The concept of guna is also important to understand happiness and well-being because

they constitute the nature (prakriti) of human being. Sattva, rajas and tamas are three

gunas where sattva reflects in illumination, rajas in energy and tamas in inertia.

The concept of ‗preyas‘ and ‗sreyas‘ is reflected in the perspective of happiness and well-

being that ranges from the ordinary to the non-ordinary in a continuum. However, in the

Katha Upanishad, ‗prayas‘ denotes common pleasure and ‗sreyas‘ is reflected in supreme

bliss. It is considered that every individual has to choose between two paths in life;

preyomārga (path of worldly life) and śreyomārga (path of spiritual life) The goal of

śreyomārga is ―apavarga‖ (liberation or self-realisation) and of preyomārga is ―bhoga‖

(worldly enjoyment or gratification). Hence, the path of worldly life sanctions an active

pursuit of kāma (desires) while the path of spiritual life demands an active pursuit of

tripti (contentment).

21

There are two types of values, lower and higher. A human being can strive towards

perfection through virtues and strengths which are called manava dharma. While higher

values denote sanatana dharma which are reflected in sustainable well-being and

happiness

(Hiriyanna,1975). It is also observed that lower values will not bring lasting happiness

because they depend on the object of the external world.

Furthermore, in Upanishidic Indian tradition two terms, Ananda and Sukha, have been

used to denote the concept of happiness. Ananda means rejoicing, joy, enjoyment,

sensual pleasure and pure happiness (Monier Williams Dictionary) and is focused on

ultimate happiness or bliss also attached with the essential nature of the Self along with

Sat (Existence) and Chit (Consciousness). Sukha is also quite a common term to denote

happiness in literature and folk culture also. It means pleasant, comfort, easiness,

prosperity, pleasure, happiness (Monier Williams dictionary).The basic difference

between ‗Sukha‘ and ‗Ananda‘ is that sukha belongs to a set of concepts where dualities

exist as dukha stands in contrast to sukha, whereas Ānanda is beyond sukha as it

transcends both sukha and dukha.

A number of other terms also indicating the happy state of the individual such as sukha,

ananda, ullasa, priti or santosh, prasanna, mast, harsh, khusi, lalita, have been used in

day today‗s life. The classical Vaisesika system recognizes happiness or pleasure (sukha)

as one of 24 qualities (gunas) of human beings, which occur in the presence of pleasant

or desirable things. It generates such symptoms as gratification, affection.

In Indian tradition, some terms related to physical and psychological well-being also exist

like, arogyam (good health),niramaya(freedom from illness), swasthyam(sound state of

body/mind), shubha (to shine, look beautiful, eminent, good, virtous). Apte,(1988) stated

that arogyam means good health which denotes both - physical and mental health. The

term swasthyam has two components ‗swa‘ and ‗stha‘, ‗swa‘ means one‘s own,

belonging to oneself, and ‗stha‘ means standing, abiding, existing and denote a state of

22

being in one‘s self . While in Ayurveda, swasthya is defined as a harmony among soma,

psyche and spirit. Ayurveda also believes in a holistic way of life to attain the state of

swasthya with focus on diet, nutrition, exercise, psychological attitudes and values, social

interactions, and spiritual practices.

Hiriyanna,(1975) stated that in Nyaya darshana, Uddyotakara considered that the object

of human desire is obtaining pleasure (sukha-prapti) and the avoidance of pain (dukha-

nivrtti). ‗Sukha‘ has also acquired the connotation of pleasure derived through a

comfortable living, presence of greater positive affect and less negative affect seems to

subjective well-being. ‗Ananda‘ has acquired the connotation of bliss characterized by

transcendence of pleasure and pain, a condition of equanimity and peace that is

sthitaprajna and established in state of awareness is an ideal state of well-being. This is

also an ability to experience pain and pleasure with equanimity.

It is also interesting to note how different Upanishads shed light upon the nature and

sources of happiness as our worldview about happiness mostly comes from traditional

thought. According to Taittirīya Upanihad ‗Ananda‘ –pure existential/transcendental

bliss along with ‗Sat‘ (Existence), and ‗Chit‘(Consciousness) is the innermost core of

beings (Brahmānandavallī). Further, the concept of ‗priya‟, „moda‟ and ‗pramoda‟ are

beautifully portrayed with the imagery of a bird where ‗priya‘ is its head, ‗moda‘ and

‗pramoda‘ are its left and right wings respectively, ‗ānanda‘ is the soul and ‗brahman‘ is

its base (Bhr:guvallī chap. 3 cited in ). Shankaracharya, commented very wisely that

when an object is seen or perceived with a sense of wanting it is ‗priya‘. When the

object is possessed, it is ‗moda‘ and when enjoyed, it is ‗pramod. A gradation of

happiness from „Manusananda‟ has also been found with the baseline and rahmānanda‟

at the top of the scale and nine levels in between them.

Brahadāraṇyaka Upanisad focused on the need for relationships. -‗ātmanastu kāmāya

sarvam: priyam : bhavati‘, which means, ‗for the sake of the self everything else becomes

dear or desirable. The nature of self is described within two words ‗ānandamaya‘(filled

23

with bliss) and ‗ānandabhuk‘ (experiencer of bliss) in the Māṇḍūkya Upanis:ad.

Wherever, Chāndogya Upanis:ad described happiness as lying in fullness or vastness and

not in a sense of limitedness. According to Kat:h hopanis:ad ‗,wealth cannot bring him

happiness‘.

Bhagavad Gītā also declared three kinds of sukha – sātvika (noble), rājasika (dynamic)

and tāmasika (lethargic). Nā:tyaśāstra, Dhvanyāloka stressed on three types of happiness:

Vis:ayānanda (Sensual/Material happiness), Kāvyānanda (Aesthetic happiness) and

Brahmānanda ( Existential/transcendental happiness).

The Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo believed that true happiness lies in finding and

maintaining of a natural harmony of spirit, mind and body. Human life consists of a

mixture of both happiness and sorrow. In fact, in the Indian tradition, the search for

knowledge begins with the realization of suffering (dukh), and moksha is treated as

liberation from suffering. The Indian poet Kalidas in his Meghdoot noted that happiness

and unhappiness do not remain forever, but resembles a rotating wheel where sometimes

happiness and sometimes unhappiness takes the front side.

Equanimity is considered important for cultivating a stable state of happiness. It reflects

the attitude of the person who is neither affected by the joy or sorrow, good or evil,

pleasure or pain and gain or loss. He/she is said to maintain his composure inspite of

life‘s circumstances. He/she treats others as if they were the person as himself and has no

desire or expectation from them. His/her senses remain under control. According to

Bhagavadgita, as a happy person, the agent does not concentrate on the results. Hence,

the result does not alter his/her state of mind by presenting either an elating or a

depressing mood. The converse of this proposition is that an agent who tries to be happy

in his/ her own self receives the results of his/her work equanimously.

In Indian context, education is considered a key to success as it empowers human beings.

As narrated in one of the famous Sanskrit verses, education imparts intellectual culture;

intellectual culture secures capacity and stability; capacity and stability enable to secure

24

wealth; wealth so secured enables to perform dharma, which in turn secures happiness

(Vidya dadati vinayam, vinayam yati patratam, patratwad dhan mapnoti, danaddhamam

tatag sukham).

Self-cultivation through Yoga, like Jñāna Yoga (path of knowledge) Karma Yoga (path

of action) Rāja Yoga (path of psychic control) and Bhakti Yoga (path of devotion) are

also emphasized in Indian traditional thought leading towards environmental mastery and

harmony. Although, fulfillment of one‘s needs from material to spiritual is the main

source of happiness but more emphasis is on contentment. Gītā also pointed out, ‗for one

who is fully content in oneself, there is nothing to strive for‘. Internal harmony,

equanimity and balance also emphasized as a source of happiness. While

interconnectedness with other is another vital aspect of happiness. Others are seen as an

extension of oneself.

In sum, it can be said that the model of man in Indian context has a relational and

interdependent self. Therefore experiencing of happiness is not only a personal

accomplishment but, is seen in terms of fulfilling familial and social obligations and

maintaining harmony with in-groups as well. Moderation in behavior is the key element

of happiness in Indian context. As, Tripathi(1988) stated that ―model of man in Indian

tradition ,whose values on the surface appear to be mutually contradictory. He is

revengeful yet forgiving….He is engage in karma but not seek fruits of it. However,

these apparently contradictory values and attitudes are integrated by an Indian in one

scheme on the basis of some higher moral principal. An Indian is, therefore not surprised

or shocked by the coexistence of things which are mutually contradictory, either in his

own mind or in reality. His morality is contextual not absolute.‖

Furthermore, Sinha,D. and Tripathi(1994) stated that Indian strategy is not of resolving

conflict but juxtaposing opposites which is often perceived as synthesis. The Indian and

Western mind is different in terms of boundaries which define mental structure. On the

other hand the Indian mind is governed by constantly shifting boundaries which are

25

variable enables the self to sometimes expand and fuse with the cosmos but in another

moment to completely withdraw from it. On the other hand stark dichotomies in Western

mind between self and others, man and nature, subjective and objective can be found

(Tripathi,1988,p.322).. Sinha, D. (1969), found that in conceptualization of a happy life,

villagers showed both materialistic as well as spiritualistic orientations. A theme that

emerged was minimum physical necessities and concern for the well-being of the family.

It is clear that the nature of Indian mind is not dichotomous but juxtaposition of

opposites. One of the best explanations would be that living in an interconnected world,

we and find everything the extension of ourselves and once we get a sense after

realization of sameness between self and others, the dualities of mind can be resolved

automatically. Further, Indians are comfortable with enjoying the materialistic world but

also reminding themselves about their spiritual obligations too as it helps them to

minimize the discrepancy between the two and strive towards perfection and feeling of

completeness.

Therefore, physical and material aspects are important but to understand happiness

deeply, individual‘s entire existential condition is essential. His psychological and social

development, the kinds of adjustment to his environment being in tune to maintain a

harmonious relationship and the unfolding of his personality as a whole with their

spirituality are equally important. It is also essential to have a clear idea about the

meaning of happiness and develop a set of indicators of happiness.

Psycho-social correlates of happiness:-

In past decades, a shift from intrapersonal to interpersonal, individual to social and

contextual in the conceptualization of happiness increases the researchers‘ interest in

psychosocial correlates of many psychological constructs. According to

Hall,Andrzejewski and Yopchick (2009), ―the large domain of correlates that we term

psychosocial, include personality, social and emotional functioning, life experiences,

values, attitudes, and self-concept‖ (p.150). In other words, psycho-social means an

26

individual in context of the combined influence of psychological factors and the

surrounding social environment have on their ability to function and their physical and

mental wellness as well as on their happiness too. This is a more integrated approach to

understand the concept of happiness and subjective well-being in comparison to others.

Furthermore, the importance of psycho-social approach also derives support from

Gergen‘s (2009) notion of ‗relational being‘ which reflects that human beings are

interconnected, and sustainable happiness is an experience of interpersonal balance and

harmonious relationships. In support of it Relational Buddhism also emphasized that we

live in dependent origination with the other and our mind is not confined within our

subjective experience but is a continuous process between interacting individuals and

from the source that experience derives its meaning. Yet, the quest of happiness begins

within our relational minds and it is our collective culture and social network that

determines our understanding of happiness. In sum, personal happiness arises through

interpersonal orientation (Kwee,M.G.T. 2013, P.367).

To understand what makes people happy numerous efforts have been done to investigate

the relationship between happiness and various physical, sociological, psychological, and

demographical factors. Wilson (1967) in his review on correlates of happiness describes

a happy person as a, ―young, healthy, well educated, optimistic, worry-free, religious,

married person with high self-esteem, high morale, modest aspirations, of either sex and

of a wide range of intelligence‖.

The demographic factors:

Although, studies have focused on how age may influence happiness (Bhattacharjee &

Mogilner, 2014), but there is no consensus about the way age relates with it (Vera

Villarroel, Atenas et al.,2012). Csikszentmihaly & Hunter, (2003), found it to be an

important factor in determining happiness. Some studies stressed that high levels of

happiness are experienced before twenties and after fifties (Vera-Villarroel, Atenas et al.,

2012) Some studies point out that happiness in late adulthood is as high, as it is in early

27

adulthood (Lacey, Kierstead et al., 2012). Studies also reported that happiness is

unaffected by age, if people have an active and sociable lifestyle (Lacey, Kierstead et al.,

2012). Across the world, age differences on average are very small. (Fortin, Helliwell et

al., 2015). Bhattacharjee & Mogilner, (2014) found that older people tend to define

happiness in terms of calm, peacefulness and a state of low arousal, emphasizing the

relationships already existing and emotional fulfillment. While younger people define it

in terms of enthusiasm, excitement and high states of arousal, pursuing happiness through

new social interactions and information and with unfamiliar and exciting choices. Studies

also found that despite cognitive and physiological decline, older people are much

happier than younger people (Bastian, Kuppens et al., 2014). Marriage is also found to be

an important correlate of happiness, (Cooper, Bebbington et al, 2011), however, it is still

a debating point because people return to baseline levels of satisfaction a couple of years

after marriage ( Helliwell, Huang et al., 2015). To put it briefly, being married can be a

source of life satisfaction (Boonstra, Reneman et al., 2013), if it happens to be a good

marriage.

There is no consensus about gender differences related to happiness (Vera- Villarroel,

Atenas et al., 2012). Several studies reported that there is no average difference related to

gender and happiness (Csikszentmihaly & Hunter, 2003; Fortin, Helliwell et al., 2015;

Vera- Villarroel, Atenas et al., 2012; "World happiness report," 2015). Gallup World

Poll, collected data between 2005 and 2014, covering around 160 different countries

("World happiness report," 2015) On a global average, life evaluations are slightly higher

for women, starting with high levels among younger women, which usually fall when

they reach middle age- with considerable differences related to regions (Helliwell, Layard

et al., 2015; "World happiness report," 2015).

However, the social context is important in analysis by gender and age across the world

(Fortin, Helliwell et al., 2015; "World happiness report," 2015). Women report higher

levels of satisfaction and happiness in most advanced countries and in those with more

equal gender rights (Layard, Clark et al., 2012; "World happiness report ", 2012). To

28

some extent, happiness is independent of age, marital status, physical health (Veenhoven,

2008) and gender (Moljord, Moksnes et al., 2011),depending on the choice we have

made in life and our capacity to make them to begin with (Veenhoven, 2008).

Many studies found that religious involvement is also related to happiness

(Cooper,Bebbington et al., 2011). Approximately 75% of the studies found that religious

involvement has a positive effect on well-being, especially in bereavement, job loss or

marital problems (Layard, Clark et al., 2012; "World happiness report ", 2012).

Religiosity improves well-being by providing the socio-cultural context for meaning and

beliefs in a society, and by providing individual values and social norms (Layard, Clark

et al., 2012).

Many studies reported that happiness has been correlated with family and social support

(Cooper, Bebbington et al., 2011; Layard, Clark et al., 2012). Individual happiness also

depends on the happiness of those people are connected to (Robinson, Kennedy et al.,

2012). Perceived social support is positively related to high levels of happiness, health

and longevity (Orkibi, Ronenet al., 2014). Wang & Murnighan (2014) argued that

relationship between income and happiness can be very complex. Diener, Ng et al.(

2010) found that people in wealthy nations are happier than those in poor nations but,

within nations there is a positive but small relation between income and happiness. It is

also found that, relation between more income and satisfaction with life is not linear

(Argyle, 2001) but some recent studies did however support positive relationship

between income and happiness (Bhattacharjee & Mogilner, 2014; Mohanty, 2014).

Although income is not significantly important for happiness, it is vital for well-being till

basic survival needs have been fulfilled (Mohanty, 2014). After the fulfillment of basic

economic needs, money has little to do with increase in happiness, as (Diener &

Seligman, 2004) people tend to focus on other psychological needs

(Wang&Murnighan,2014). Easterlin(1995) concludes that ―today, as in the past, within a

29

country at a given time those with higher incomes are, on average, happier. However,

raising the incomes of all does not increase the happiness of all‖.

Mohanty, (2014) stated that happiness is positively related not only to material well-

being but also to positive psychological attitude (Mohanty, 2014). Spending money on

oneself is not so much related to happiness, as spending money on others is (Dunn, Aknin

et al., 2008).

Myers and Diener, (1995) note that some individuals are chronically happy, even in the

face of adversity; or people who are consistently unhappy, despite the best of

circumstances. They concluded, that certain traits and temperaments such as optimism,

self-esteem, personal control, extraversion, social support including marriage, culture,

engagement and flow, and faith appear to provide clues to the person‗s happiness.

Personality and heritability factors also are related to individual differences in happiness.

It is argued that genetic factors contribute 80% of individual differences in SWB and

happiness (Lykken&Tellengen, 1996). Furthermore, many individual differences in

happiness are also linked with extraversion and neuroticism (Lucas,2008), self-esteem

(Diener, Diener & Diener, 1995) and optimism(Lucas et al.,1996).

Diener and colleagues, in their various studies have reported happiness related to

income,genetic predisposition, inner traits of self esteem, extraversion, optimism, and a

sense of personal control, work satisfaction, close relationships, adaptation such as

habituation, coping strategies, changing goals, standard of living, family life, social

support, biological systems and sound physical health, economic growth and religion

(Diener,1984; Myers & Diener, 1995; Diener et al., 1999).

In sum, it can be say that no consensus is found in pinpointing a specific factor that

contributes to a happy life. Present research is focused on three factors; hope, social

support and mode of self and their relationship with happiness.

30

Hope :

Snyder, Irving & Anderson ,( 1991) , defined hope as, ―a positive motivational state that

is based on an interactive derived sense of successful agency (goal-directed energy), and

pathways (planning to meet goals)( p 91).‖

Hope has been defined as hopeful thinking (Snyder, 2000a), positive emotional

experience (Fredrickson, 2009), character strength (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), or a

transcendental phenomenon (Emmons, 2005; Vaillant, 2008).Averill, Catlin and Chon

(1990) describe hope as an emotion, governed by cognitions. Hope can be most

appropriate when goals are (a) reasonably attainable (b) under control (c) viewed as

important (d) acceptable at a social and moral level.‖

Lopez (2013) also point out that the way in which people think about the future,

determines their success in relationships, career and business. According to Snyder‘s

cognitive hope theory, hope includes four components: Agency, Pathways, Goal, and

Barriers. While Agency refers to the motivation and energy one possesses, pathways

implied the routes people take to achieve their desired goal and their perceived ability to

produce these routes (Snyder, 2000a). Both agency and pathways are essential for goal

attainment (Snyder et al. 1991). Rand & Cheavens ( 2009) viewed goals as abstract

mental targets that guide human behaviors and play an important role in hopeful

thinking, by providing a direction and an endpoint to it (Snyder, 2000a).

Snyder,Rand, & Sigmon,( 2002) described high hope individuals having an emotional

mindset with joy and assurance while, low-hope individuals refer to passivity and

negative feelings.

Although hope and optimism seem to similar but Gallagher and Lopez (2009) argued

that both are two different constructs Alarcon et al. (2013) found that while optimism is

independent of context, hope is prominent in personally relevant situations (Arnau et al.,

31

2007). Thus it can be seen that hope is directly related to goal attainment, while optimism

is related to the quality of the outcome rather than to a specific goal. 2002).

Further, some researchers suggested that false hope also occurs when expectations are

based on illusions rather than reality (e.g., Beavers & Kaslow, 1981); when inappropriate

goals are pursued (Snyder et al., 2002); and when poor strategies are used to achieve the

desired goals (Kwon,2000, 2002).

Furthermore, Snyder et al (2002) posit that goal-pursuit cognitions cause emotions and

argued that positive emotions flow from perceptions of successful goal pursuit, whilst

negative emotions are the product of unsuccessful goal pursuits. Hope is positively linked

with well-being (Slade, 2009,) life satisfaction (Wong & Lim, 2009), optimism (Scheier

& Carver, 1993) internal locus of control (Gizir, 2004) while has a negative relationship

with depression (Çetintürk, 2001), anxiety (Onwuegbuzie, 1998), external locus of

control (Gizir, 2004) and pessimism (Carver & Scheier, 2000b).

Studies done in the field of hope revealed that young adults (20-35 years) had a more

hopeful outlook in comparison to adolescents (15-19 years) and middle adults (35-50

years) ( Slezackova and Vemolova 2017,1). Benesova et al. ( 2014), Found that the

children who are more hopeful and greatly satisfied with their lives, physical appearance

and family background and were more physically active in comparison to the less hopeful

children.

In a cross-cultural study with Czech and Indian respondents aged 18 to 29 years,

Slezackova & Choubisa, (2017) found that young Czech adults scored significantly

higher in perceived hope, life satisfaction, spirituality, meaning of life, and positive

relationships, while Indian respondents reported higher depression. Studies also revealed

a significant relationship between hope and social relationship (Horton & Wallander,

2001) and hope and life satisfaction (Slezackova, 2015).

Brustmannova and Slezackova (2016) found hope to be a strong predictor of well-being.

No significant differences in hope were found regarding gender or age. People living in a

long-term partnership, however showed higher levels of hope than those who were single.

32

Hanysova (2015) conducted a study with 65 homeless people (83 % male and 17 %

female, aged 19 to 75 years).The results revealed that hope and gratitude were found

significantly related to flourishing as well as with religiousness and spirituality and

reported that serving a higher purpose helped people to cope with intolerable

circumstances. The source of hope for the participants was their families.

However, Marques, Lopez, and Mitchell (2013) indicated that hope and spirituality, but

not religious practice, were strongly linked to adolescents‘ life satisfaction. Slezackova,(

2014) found that hope, optimism and meaningfulness were significantly correlated with

both cognitive and emotional aspects of well-being. Thus, on the basis of the studies it

can be concluded that hope is the strongest predictor of happiness and well-being but

needs to be explored deeply in reference to happiness of youth in India.

Social Support

Social support is another construct related to happiness. Veiel & Bauman, (1992) stated

that Social support could be an interaction, person, or a relationship. Hupcey, (1998) also

described social support as a type of positive interaction or helpful behavior towards a

person in need of support. Further, Hupcey(1998) suggested five categories of social

support which are type of support provided, recipients perceptions of support, intentions

or behaviors of the provider, reciprocal support and social networks. Yıldırım, İ. (2007)

viewed social support as a social- psychological assistance in an individual‘s

environment by others. According people provide social support by making use of their

knowledge, skills and experience in order to solve a problem. However, social support

can be defined as physical and psychological comfort provided by friends, family, and

other significant people such as, partner, spouse etc. Edwards (2004) stressed that social

support includes affective support such as love, liking and respect; instrumental support

such as aid in work, giving information, or money, while emotional support involves

providing warmth and nurturance to another individual and reassuring them that they are

and cared for. Appraisal support and informational support are also included in social

support.

33

Topbay, Y. (2016) found that perceived social support is a strong predictor of

psychological well-being. Natvig, Albrektsen, and Qvarnstrøm (2003) found that social

support provided by teachers and peers was a significant indicator of happiness. Some

studies revealed that social support is significantly correlated with happiness (Fırat,

N.2015, Koyuncu, Ö.2015, Uyan, A.2014 ).

Furthermore, many researchers found significant positive correlation between social

support and happiness. Diener, et al., (2008), Sharma, et al., (2010), and Demir, Simsek,

and Procsal (2012) have all found that perceived social support from significant sources

like friends, and partners positively correlated with students‘ subjective well-being and

happiness. This could be because bonds of friendship promote individuals‘ feelings of

uniqueness and comfort and also keep them away from loneliness. Thus, the feeling of

being cared for and loved increases the level of happiness and enhances people coping

skill (Cohen, 2004).

Thus, it can be concluded that social support is a strong indicator of happiness and is

vital in Indian culture which is more collectivistic in nature. Salami,( 2008a) rightly

suggested that it is appropriate for an individual to seek social support from family,

friends and significant others on some personal, social and other vital issues as Indians do

many times.

Mode of Self Construal

Many cross-cultural studies reported that self is always mediating between culture and

happiness. According to Markus and Kitayama (1991) the term self-construal means the

way people define and make sense of the self. To construe means to ―show or explain the

meaning or intention of‖ thus, self-construal is typically defined as how individuals see

the self in relation to others. Therefore, how we feel, think and interact in a social

situation are basically determined and shaped by mode of self construal. Two major

modes of self-concept namely, Independent and Interdependent self guide our interaction

with the environment. While, Independent self concept operates with the notion of

34

individuality that the human being is basically unique has free will, personal ideals and

choices, interdependent self operates with the notion of relatedness and sameness to

maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships with others. Markus and Kitayama

(1991), further, argued that in a culture the meaning of happiness for a lay person may be

vary depending upon on the cultural context in which those people live and practice a

particular type of mode of self in their daily lives (Markus and Kitayama 1991).

Further, Uchida and Ogihara (2012) investigated that cultural context of independence

and interdependence would cultivate happiness in divergent ways. Hitokoto and Uchida

(2014) found that ―interdependent happinesss‖ composed of relational harmony,

quiescence in life, and ordinariness, significantly and positively correlates with

interdependent self-construal . Thus,Uchida and Ogihara(2012) suggested that,

qualitative considerations regarding the prevalent modes of self should be used to fully

capture the well-being of lay people. Thus, East Asian countries that have experienced

extensive economic development, interdependent happiness has retained significance in

their SWB. In other words, cultural aspects of our happiness are very much stable and

deserve attention.

Strategies to improve happiness:-

Csikszentmihalyi(2002 ) viewed that, ―happiness is not just the result of a good chance or

fortune, or even something that people can buy. Happiness must be prepared, cultivated

and defended by each person‖. Although it is a challenge to set point theory but

happiness is not fixed to a set point (Veenhoven,2013b). Studies concluded in this area

show some people remain happier throughout their lives in comparison to others

(Veenhoven, 2013b), others less happy (Veenhoven, 2011b), or getting experience of

great satisfaction after the age of 50 which tends to decrease before death (Veenhoven,

2013b).

Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) argued that 40% of the differences in happiness are due to

intentional individual activities and only 10% are due to circumstances beyond their

control (Sheldon, Boehm et al., 2012). There are two ways to improve individual

35

happiness: one, by changing one‘s view towards life (Ricard,2003) and the other is by

changing one‘s way of life (Nawijn & Veenhoven,2011). Therefore 40% of the variance

in happiness is caused by intentional activity (Lyubomirsky, 2011; Sheldon, Boehm et

al., 2012). Only 10% of the variance is due to unintentional activity (Nawijn &

Veenhoven, 2011). Researchers suggested that the individual happiness could be

increased through some intentional activities (Kurtz & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Layous,

Chancellor et al., 2014). Happiness can be increased by intentional changes in one‘s

thought and behavior (Lyubomirsky, 2011; Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013), such as, by

physical activity (Moljord, Moksnes et al., 2011), listening to music (Morinville, Miranda

et al., 2013), meditating (Grinde, 2012) by ethical attitudes (Ricard, 2003), practicing

gratitude, being optimistic and acts of kindness (Layous, Chancellor et al., 2014;

Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013). However, effort and engagement (Steger, Kashdan et al.,

2008), with both cognitive effortful and behavioral strategies (Kurtz & Lyubomirsky,

2013), step by step (Ricard, 2005), helps to develop long lasting happiness (Steger,

Kashdan et al., 2008).

Neuroscience stresses that multiple brain regions are involved in happiness. The

prefrontal cortex is the key component of the circuit that implements positive and

negative affects (Luo, Huang et al., 2014). Therefore it can be shaped or cultivated by

mental training such as psychotherapy and meditation (Davidson & Schuyler, 2015).

Some strategies like good social relationship, quality of individual social relationship,

Altruism and pro-social behaviors (Davidson & Schuyler, 2015; "World happiness

report," 2015) are some of the strongest predictors of well-being and happiness.) Thus, it

can be concluded that strategies to enhance happiness should be applied for youth who

are contributing a large proportion of population as India became youngest country of the

world by 2020.

Consequences of happiness:-

There are many consequences of happiness as Lyubomirsky, Sheldon et al. (2005)

viewed, that happy people recieve key social rewards in the form of more friends,

36

stronger and richer social relationships and interactions, more energy and productivity

and achieve better financial success, (Cohn,Brown et al., 2009). They also have a

stronger immune system and lower levels of cortisol (Layard, 2005).

The social relationships have a great effect both on physical and mental health, affecting

all well-being related aspects (Argyle, 2001), and help to protect the mind against mental

aging (Lee, Yoon et al., 2012). Happiness is energizing, it improves activity, creativity

and performance (Veenhoven, 2014c).

Happy people live longer (Cohn, Brown et al., 2009; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon et al., 2005)

with better mental and physical health. Therefore, they experience more positive moods

and have greater cognitive control capacity to regulate negative emotions (Luo, Huang et

al., 2014). Also, Happiness is not only the result of the success, but also the cause for

it(Lyubomirsky & Layous, 2013). Happy people are more satisfied because they develop

resources for a better living (Cohn, Brown et al., 2009), make more optimistic judgments

(Schulreich, Heussen et al., 2014) and do not tend to ruminate as much as unhappy

people (Layous, Chancellor et al., 2014; Luo, Huang et al., 2014; Lyubomirsky, Boehm

et al., 2011).According to Mohanty,( 2014) attitude can change happiness levels with

sustained and conscious efforts. A positive attitude, is more strongly related to happiness

than income and could be improved by education and training in behavioral skills.

Psychological Studies on Happiness

The empirical researches on happiness started around the 60‘s, and happiness became

strong a subjective indicator of the performance of the social system (Veenhoven, 2004a).

Survey research on happiness started in the second half of the 20th

century (Veenhoven,

2015a). The ―Databook of Happiness‖ is published in 1984 by Veenhoven. In March

2012, 5,000 findings out of 20,000 in the World Database of Happiness were about how

satisfied people are with their life in different nations; while the rest 15000 were

correlation findings (Veenhoven, 2013b).

37

The first World Happiness Report (WHR) published in 2012, included the ranking of

national average life evaluation based on Gallup World poll data for 156 countries, from

2005 to 2011 (" World happiness report ", 2012). It included life assessment on a scale of

0-10 in reference to

6 variables, including the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, social support,

healthy life

expectancy, freedom to make choices, generosity and freedom from corruption

(Helliwell, Huang et al., 2015; "World happiness report "2012).).

Many psychological studies reported that happiness has two components, emotional and

cognitive (Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999) that include people‘s

emotional responses, domain satisfaction, and global judgments of life satisfaction.

Diener (1984), defined well being as being subjective and including positive measures to

assess global assessment of all aspects of a person‗s life and consisting of overall

satisfaction with life and balance of negative and positive affect. While, Lyubomirsky

(2001), defined, happiness as a joyful experience, feeling of contentment or positive well-

being, combined with a sense that one‗s life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile.

Happiness constitutes people‘s life satisfaction and their evaluation of important domains

of life such as work, health and relationships, also includes their emotions such as joy and

engagement. Thus, happiness is about thinking and feeling positively about one‗s life (

Diener and Biswas-Diener ,2008).

Satisfaction with Life:

Life satisfaction is a judgment about one‘s life over a span of time. Therefore, happiness

is being satisfied with, liking, and being pleased with one‘s life as a whole.

Positive Affect:

Positive affect refers to pleasant moods and emotions, such as joy and affection, and

reflects a person‘s reactions to events that life is preceding in a desirable way. Positive

affect includes emotions like positive reactions to others, as affection, positive reactions

38

to activities as interest and engagement, and general positive moods as joy etc. Therefore,

positive affect reflects one‘s level of pleasurable engagement with an event.

Negative Affect:

Negative affect includes moods and emotions that are unpleasant and reflect as

Individual‘s negative responses in reaction to their lives, health, events, and

circumstances. Major forms of negative or unpleasant reactions include anger, sadness,

anxiety and worry, stress, frustration, guilt and shame, envy, loneliness or helplessness.

Bradburn (1969) argued, that positive affect and negative affect are independent of each

other, in other words a person high on positive affect may not be low on negative affect.

Therefore, it seems that happiness is not unidimensional. Seligman further (2002)

identified some causes of happiness: H (enduring level of happiness) = S (personal

setrange) + C (circumstances) + V (factors under personal voluntary control).

Lyubomirsky and colleagues (2005) also suggested that set-point, life circumstances, and

intentional activity effect happiness. Thus it can be concluded that happiness is a

multidimensional construct.

In India, many studies have focused on the nature and causes of happiness. Sinha (1969),

reported about the Indian villagers conception of a happy life. He found that villagers

were overwhelmingly concerned with immediate economic values and happiness of

family, needs of prestige, status, recreation, values and ideals. Further, villagers also

reflect the orientation of materialism and spiritualism both. Recently, Misra, R.C.(2017)

also examined the notion of happy life and its ingredients of Adivasi people. The study

was carried out on 200 males of the Kharwar adivasi, aged between 30-60 years. The

results revealed that economy, relationships and health were major elements of a happy

life for Adivasi.

Mukherjee(1967), found that happy Americans were more autonomous and possessed

power and good health while Indian viewed happiness in context of simple living, social

conformity, constrains and faithfulness in relationships. Fazel and Young(1988), reported

39

that Tibtain refugees are highly satisfied despite several constraints and difficult life

circumstances in comparison to Hindus residing in India.

Rangaswami,(1994) found that elderly participants reported their ultimate aim of life to

be ‗united with universal self‘ through spirituality. According to Verma and Sinha(1993),

conception of happiness among college students refers to current concern and future

goals. It also operates private self more than collective self.

Srivastva (2008), by using interview methodology reported about sources of happiness,

that children feel happy being in company of family and friends, successful completion of

tasks and studies.

Furthermore, Indian scriptures also shed light upon the nature of happiness as Banavathy

& Choudry, (2014) stated that Vedas describe happiness as being subjective, not the

absence of unhappiness, primary motivator, a psychological state, which helps maintain

interconnections with others, gives us the freedom to choose, and is to be realized. In

India some empirical studies on happiness and well-being like, (Nath and Pradhan, 2011)

found that positive writing affects well-being and physical health.

Findings show that happier individuals irrespective of gender have higher emotional

intelligence than unhappy women and men( Khosla and Dokania,2010)

Peltzer and Pengpid,(2013) investigated that positive health behaviors, greater social

support, personal mastery and higher socioeconomic status are correlated with greater

happiness among university students. Pinjarkar and Mehrotra (2014) reported that

women found meaning in relationships and men from personal growth and prestige in

society.

Singh and Jha (2008) found that, grit, positive affect, happiness and life satisfaction are

all significantly positively correlated.

Furthermore, many studies found that religiosity and spirituality are highly correlated

with happiness. Ramesh, Sathian, Sinu, and Rai (2013) found that Brahma Kumaris

Rajayoga meditation significantly increases an individual‘s self-satisfaction and

40

happiness by enhancing positive thinking in them. Pirta (2014) also stated that

exceptional mental states such as transcendence, ‗‗have significance for psychological

well-being‘‘ (p. 166).

Hafen, Singh, and Laursen, (2011) found that personality, emotional intelligence, and

happiness were highly correlated among university students .Sood & Gupta (2012) and

Singh, Ruch, &Junnarkar,(2015) found that well-being declined with increasing age from

early adolescence to middle adolescence to late adolescence. A study reported that age

and gender were not related with happiness among university students( Peltzer and

Pengpid,2013). Singh, Kaur, Singh, and Junnarkar,(2014) found that among rural women,

higher education led to better subjective and psychological well-being and positive

relations with others as compared to those with lesser education. It is also reported that

most village girls in India value strengths such as being dutiful, empathetic, respecting

elders, belief in God and patriotism.

Malik and Singh (2012) suggested a list of strategies such as spirituality, relationships

with others, recreational activities and cognitive strategies for changing happiness.

On the basis of review it can be concluded that mostly studies done in India are based on

western conceptions of happiness and basically co relational in nature and depend on

foreign based measurement tools. Indian researchers have knowingly ignored lay

perspective embedded with context by Indian researchers. Mehrotra and Tripathi‘s (2011)

point out that there is limited information about the measures used and their applicability

in the Indian scenario in most studies.

Measurement of happiness:-

Conceptual ambiguity of happiness also is reflected in its measurement. There are 1065

measures of happiness in the World Database of Happiness including mostly short survey

questions varying in wording and response scales (Veenhoven, 2015). Further, many

happiness studies have focused on the frequency and intensity of happiness, rather than

41

the duration of happiness. Studies have found that both intensity and frequency make

independent contributions to happiness (Compton, 2005; Diener, Larsen, Levine, &

Emmons, 1985).

Some one-dimensional happiness measures are ‗Oxford Happiness Questionnaire‘ by

Hills & Argyle,( 2002); ‗Satisfaction with Life Scale‗ by Diener, Emmons, Larsen &

Griffin, (1985).

Many two dimensional scales include ‗Affect Balance‘ Scale by Bradburn,

(1969),Positive and Negative Affect Schedule by Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988;

Affectometer-2 by Kammann & Flett, 1983) while some are multi-dimensional such as

Psychological Well-Being Scale by Ryff, (1989). Approaches to Happiness

Questionnaire by Peterson et al, (2005).

Most happiness measures have employed likert-type scale (e.g. Cantril‗s Ladder by

Cantril, 1965; Faces Scale by Andrews & Withey, 1976; Satisfaction With Life Scale,

Subjective Happiness Scale, Psychological Well Being Scale, Oxford Happiness

Questionnaire, etc.), using single item (Gallup surveys; Euro barometer surveys; GSS

surveys; Cantril‗s Ladder, 1965; Faces Scale, Delighted-Terrible Scale by Andrews &

Withey, 1976; Holder & Coleman, 2008a, 2008b; etc.) two-items (Fordyce‗sHappiness

Measure, 1988) as well as multiple-items (Psychological Well Being Scale, Satisfaction

With Life Scale, Subjective Happiness Scale, Oxford Happiness Questionnaire,

Approaches to Happiness Questionnaire, Affectometer, Affect Balance Scale; etc.) .

Single-item self-report measures of happiness have been widely used ever since the

beginning of happiness research and have been found very reliable (Adbel-Khalek, 2006;

Andrews & Withey, 1976; Cantril, 1965; Diener, 1984, 2000; Di Tella, McCulloch, &

Oswald, 1999; Inglehart, Basanez, Diez-Medrano, Halman, & Luijkx, 2000; Kamman &

Flett, 1983; Michalos, 1985; Wessman and Ricks, 1966). They are favoured by some

researchers as they can easily be embedded in large survey using multiple variables or

constructs (Veenhoven, 2003). They have been extensively used, have significant

42

correlation with a standardized measure of happiness (Abdel-Khalek, 2006; Holder &

Coleman, 2008a, 2008b) and good test – retest reliability (correlations between .50 and

.70) for time periods of 1 day to 2-years (Krueger & Schkade, 2008; Michalos & Kahlke,

2010).

However, single-item or two-item measures have often been criticized as they have only

Temporal reliability, lack internal validity and are too obvious, leading to possible

response bias (Argyle, 2001; Diener, 1984). Scores tend to be skewed, with most

responses falling in the happy categories (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Diener, 1984;

Holder & Coleman, 2008a, 2008b). Some recent studies have warned against making

inferences based solely on single item scales and have suggested that they be used

cautiously (Loo, 2002).

Happiness has mostly been assessed subjectively using self-reports i.e. asking people

how they feel and what they want. All the above mentioned scales are self-report

measures. Some studies have assessed happiness by objective standards, i.e. how people

act and what they have (e.g., Jenkinson & McGee, 1998; Layard, 2005; Swinyard, Kau,

& Phua, 2001; Wilkinson, 2007) and using informant, family or peer reports or

observation. Researchers favor self-report of happiness over objective measures

(e.g.,income, years of education, marriage, standard of life, etc.) because researchers find

that happiness is difficult to evaluate objectively and objective measures largely ignore

cultural and individual differences (Markides & Martin, 1979; Sharma et al. 2005a;

Swinyard et al., 2001; Veenhoven, 2003; Verma & Verma, 1989). Many times, those

who score high on objective measures report low score on subjective happiness.

However, subjective measures are found to be affected by cognitive biases, such as the

effects of expectations and adaptation (Argyle, 2001) that may render the results

unreliable. Self-reports places the determination of happiness in the individual and allow

individuals rather than experts to decide what is important to them (Diener, Sapyta, &

Suh, 1998). To many, understanding happiness in terms of objective features (virtuous

43

activity, being a fully functioning person, etc.) is normative, evaluative, identifying - real

happiness in a limited way, and regarding the happiness of many people as deficient or

inferior (Chekola, 2010). For these reasons, researchers take seriously people‘s reports of

their subjective happiness seriously, especially when supported by converging reports

from informants and by observation of accompanying dysfunction or social competence

(Layard, 2005). Researchers also find it reassuring that response artifacts, such as the

effects of social desirability and current mood, do not invalidate these self-report

measures (Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, & Gallagher, 1991; Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao,

1995). Many of these multi-item measures are extensively used by happiness researchers

in India.

The present Research: Rationale and objectives

The present research examined the psycho-social correlates of happiness. On the basis of

review of literature it is clear that there is no consensus among researchers. The sample of

the present research is constituted by youth because in the present era youth are living in

difficult times with them having to face a lot of internal and external challenges. External

challenges include, cut- throat competition, weak social fabric, lack of trust, inequality,

corruption and unhealthy life style and internal causes such as anxiety internal conflict,

depression etc. These challenges tend to effects the physical –mental health and level of

happiness of Indian youth considerably.

According to World Health Organization (WHO) report (2012), India accounted for the

highest number of suicides in the world (PTI, 2014). Suicides were reportedly highest in

the age group of 15–29 years (BS Reporter, 2014) which represents adolescence and

early adulthood. India also has the highest rate of major depression in the world

(Chatterjee, 2011). It is also noteworthy that in a challenging environment youth are

required to set long term goals in life and take crucial decisions involving career and

family.

Although it is clear that people across the world strive to be happy (Diener, 2000), but no

one knows what it means to be happy and major causes of happiness, including happiness

44

increasing strategies. On the basis of review it is found that there is no consensus among

researchers on the meaning of happiness. Although, everyone agree that happiness is an

internal positive mental state produced by internal and external factors, diversity in

meaning also leads to diverse measurement tools which may result in to confusing and

contradictory findings which in turn result in more conceptual ambiguity. It is also found

that mostly happiness theories have been focused and driven by individual factors and

very little attention has been given on social aspects and the context in which individual

is embedded. In addition, Hone et al, (2014) argued that voice of lay people and their

real-world understandings of happiness is largely missing and is a vital gap in the

literature of happiness. Also, Blanchflower and Oswald (2004) point out the limitation to

wellbeing statistics saying ―unlikely the human happiness can be understood without, in

part, listening to what human being say‖ (p.1360).

Against this backdrop the present research was planned to explore the psycho-social

correlates of happiness.

Thus, keeping in the mind the major objectives the present dissertation was comprised of

two studies. Study-1(chap.-2) is related to psycho-social correlates of happiness. While

study-2(chap.-3) is related to an in-depth exploration of meaning of happiness, it‘s

concomitants and strategies to be happy on the basis of in-depth interviews.

What is the meaning of happiness for youth and explore various co-relates of happiness

is the major objective. Participants aged between 18-30 years are referred to ―youth‖

participated in this study. The National Youth Policy (NYP-2014) has defined ‗youth‘ as

persons in the age-group of 15-29 years and Proposes a holistic ‗vision‘ for the youth of

India, which is ―To empower youth of the country to achieve their full potential, and

through them enable India to find its rightful place in the community of nations.‖

Conventionally, period from adolescence to middle age is termed as youth. UN adopted

the age group 15 to 24 for defining youth.

45

In the present research participants were selected from two different contexts, one

Allahabad University hostels and another was Spiritual Ashrams from Allahabad city.

The University hostel is characterized as a educational place where students comes from

different regions of country and live together and set long term goal of life to get a job by

gaining education. Youth living in the hostels fully focused on their goal which is

materialistic in nature along with modern life style and values. Spiritual Ashrams are an

important part of ancient Indian cultural heritage where sages lived in peace and

tranquility. Youth living in the Spiritual Ashrams also are supposed to focus on the meta

goal of spiritual life along with traditional life style and values. Lavric and Flere (2008)

reported that high level of religiosity in a given cultural setting seems to enhance positive

and stronger correlations between religiosity and psychological well-being in contrast in

low religious environments. To understand the happiness and it‘s co-relates among youth

of hostels and ashrams are indicative of identified happiness from the materialistic and

non-materialistic perspective. Indian traditional rule books preach that materialism is

‗MAYA‘, temporary in nature and not permanent, whereas non-materialistic are spiritual

orientation is ever-lasting and gives permanent pleasure.

The Ashrams are seeds of spiritualism, which have their goals at pursuit of salvation,

whereas hostels specify the path of material life, for which our needs to acquire qualities,

competencies and characteristic to be successful.

Thus the agenda, goals and means are different and are comparable in both hostels and

ashrams. The parents and society expects them too excel in perusing their respective

goals. Both have their justification in what they are achieving in their lives.

Research Objectives

To find out the equivalent term of ‗happiness‘.

To explore the meaning of happiness from the perspective of youth.

● To investigate the psycho-social correlates and concomitants of happiness.

46

● To identify the strategies people use to be happy.

Thus, In order to investigate the psycho-social correlates of happiness researcher

adopted a sequential explanatory mixed methods research design which involves

collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data, integrating findings, and

drawing inferences using both methods in a single study or a program of inquiry

(Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Creswell & Clark, (2011) viewed that mixed design has significant relevance as it enables

the researcher to study the construct from different perspectives.

Research Plan:

In order to find out the objectives the present dissertation sequential explanatory mixed

methods research design was used.

MIXED EXPLANATORY METHOD

1-STUDY

QUANTITATIVE METHOD

2-STUDY

QUALITATIVE METHOD

INTEGRATED

DISCUSSION TO

PART-A

EQUIVALENT

TERM HAPPINESS

PART -B

PSYCHO-SOCIAL

CORRELATES OF

HAPPINESS