by Ed Diener
The Yagua lived in raised stick houses with simple thatch roofs. We could see hammocks stretched from the posts, and a few were swollen with men and women resting in the heat. The children rushed to greet us, mostly naked. The boys had jet-black hair and runny noses that appeared to be ubiquitous. The men, with dried paint on their chests and wearing grass skirts, came next. There was a fair amount of mutual staring and nervous smiling.
Finally, a man stepped forward with a six-foot-long blowgun, eager to demonstrate his skill with the hunting weapon. Our guide translated: we were to fold up a peso note and place it on a faraway tree trunk. If the man could hit the money with a dart, he could keep it. He hit the bill, an impossibly small target, on the first try, and everyone in the crowd laughed. I patted the man on the back and he put his arm around me with a wide grin on his face.
When we asked the guide why the man might want pesos, with no stores anywhere nearby, Daniel offered the explanation. On his last trip to the Yagua, the guide had brought a shotgun along and demonstrated its use to the men. They loved the gun; even better than a blowgun, they said. The guide told the villagers how they could earn money for a future shotgun purchase if they agreed to allow him to visit their village and they performed blowgun demonstrations for the visitors he brought along.
A Yagua elder gave eight-year-old Robert a short blowgun and darts as we were leaving. However, Rob's mom put her foot down to the poisonous curare they offered for the dart tips, afraid that back home a dart might find its way into one of Robert's friends rather than a local squirrel.
These people could not be more different from us. No running water, modern medicine, books, or modern conveniences. Stick homes without walls, and loincloth clothes. They hunt and live in kinship groups. But here they are, laughing and having a good time, seeming similar to us. Are they happy?
Such variation in material wealth, religious values, language, and other cultural factors exists among different national and ethnic groups that it makes sense to wonder if some groups are happier than others. Common sense might suggest that people living in industrial nations are happier than the Yagua because of the modern conveniences they possess. But some believe that happiness is largely a matter of personality and personal choices, and therefore that one's culture or nationality should not matter much. Which is true? Theories of happiness tell us that most people are mildly happy so that we have the energy, creativity, and friendliness to function effectively, while scientific studies reveal that some groups are much happier than others.
A fundamental question is whether happiness really matters to people in all cultures. In table 8.1, we show how important college students from around the globe think happiness and other values are. The respondents everywhere rate happiness as very important, although there are differences in the importance placed on it. As the table reveals, people in some cultures think that there are things more important than happiness, but people in diverse nations all believe happiness is important.
Nations did differ some on how desirable happiness is considered to be. This was confirmed in two studies by Shigehiro Oishi, who studied people's perceptions of Jesus in Korea and the United States. He found that Americans rated Jesus as a happier person than did Koreans. They rated themselves as happier and more extroverted than did Koreans as well. If participants saw Jesus as happier, they were more likely to rate themselves as happier. In a second study, Americans rated hypothetical job applicants as most desirable if they were happy extroverts, whereas Koreans showed a preference for the happy introvert. This suggests the possibility that Asians prefer calm and contented happiness, while Westerners prefer more aroused and activated happiness.
Most People Are Mildly Happy
Research shows that most people are mildly happy most of the time. Time and again, this result emerges. Even when different researchers use different samples of people, different methods, and even different definitions of happiness, most research participants report being mildly happy most of the time unless the living conditions are dire. It is common to find that most people are mildly happy, and that only a few are ecstatic or depressed. Some people are incredulous when they learn about this surprising finding. Perhaps you are skeptical. You might wonder if Scandinavians and New Zealanders are happy. Yes, and their suicide rates aren't nearly as high as many people believe. How about Inuit seal hunters in remote corners of the Arctic? Yep. What about Americans? Yes, them too. There are probably strong evolutionary reasons for this: happiness helps people function by keeping them motivated, making them more creative and helpful to others, and helping them persevere. Although widespread happiness seems to be the human default, there is nonetheless cultural variation in the degree of happiness.
Take, for example, a study we conducted with groups around the world. We were interested in gathering happiness data from far-flung groups who lead materially simple lives and have limited exposure to the influences of Western media. We wanted to understand the experience of happiness among people who did not drive automobiles or care which movie stars are dating and divorcing. We interviewed people in traditional Maasai villages in Kenya, hunters in a remote village in northern Greenland, and Amish people in the United States. We stayed with people from these groups over the course of months, talked with them about the quality of their lives, and collected survey data on happiness from them. We sat around campfires and dinner tables, and tried to figure out why they feel the way they do. We asked them about their daily emotions, their overall levels of satisfaction, and how satisfied they were with various aspects of their lives, such as their house and friendships. Members of all three groups reported - on average - that they were moderately, but not perfectly, happy. This is what most groups say (although homeless people and mental patients are notable exceptions). Bear in mind also that these are average scores, and that not every Maasai or Amish person was necessarily happy; just most of them. At the top end, there was no single individual from the hundreds we studied in these groups who was perfectly happy across all of our measures. People on average are moderately happy, but never perfectly happy.
The Happiest Countries on Earth
Given the fact that we have observed regional differences in happiness, many people wonder what the happiest place on earth is. Is it wealthy America? Slow-paced Cambodia? The ultramodern United Arab Emirates? Or possibly upbeat Brazil? The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, with its idea of gross domestic happiness rather than gross domestic product? Fortunately, the answer to the question of which cultures are happy need not be a matter of guesswork. We don't have to wonder long about which nations are happy places and which places are not so emotionally shiny.
For this book, we analyzed the World Poll conducted in 2006 and 2007 by the Gallup Organization, the most complete sampling of humanity that has ever been conducted. In this poll, Gallup interviewed over a thousand people in each of about 130 nations, and these individuals were selected in a way to broadly represent each nation. The score we present in table 8.2 is the ladder of life scale invented by Hadley Cantril, in which people place themselves on an eleven-rung ladder, ranging from the best to the worst possible life they can imagine for themselves. It can be seen that the countries with the highest ladder score - with respondents saying they are high on the ladder of life - are economically developed, democratic, high in human rights, and high in equal rights for women. In contrast, the societies with the lowest life satisfaction tend to be extremely poor, are often politically unstable, and experience conflict within and with neighboring nations. The differences between the high and low lists are large, not just statistically significant. What this demonstrates is that not all happiness comes from within, as many pundits claim - to feel satisfied with one's life, it is important to live in secure circumstances where one's needs can be met.
As can be seen, those nations highest on the ladder are all wealthy, and the unsatisfied nations comprise many very poor countries. Several societal characteristics are important to happiness, ev
en after controlling for the wealth of nations. For example, longevity correlates with life satisfaction and inversely correlates with negative emotions, even with income controlled. This suggests that health and happiness go together even beyond the fact that people in wealthy societies are healthier. Combining low incomes, political instability, major health concerns, government corruption, and human-rights problems can create a culture in which many people experience very low happiness.
Source: Gallup Organization: Gallup World Survey (2006)
Every society has very happy and unhappy individuals. But in some societies, most people are happy, and in a few societies where conditions are dire, most people are not so happy. Our data demonstrate that societal conditions can and do matter greatly for happiness, and that governments, not just individuals, influence the well-being that people experience. It is often claimed that happiness is an individual matter and not the concern of our governments - but good societies are absolutely necessary for providing the supportive structure in which pursuing happiness can be successful. Living in a well-off, stable, and well-governed society helps happiness.
How Cultures Differ in Happiness
Besides characteristics such as wealth, health, and governance, is there more that can affect national happiness? Can culture influence happiness - the beliefs, values, and traditions that also differentiate groups? Several dimensions of culture influence happiness beyond the stability and wealth of societies.
Prioritizing Groups versus Individuals
When most people consider culture, they think about the most visible aspects, such as language, religion, dress, and food. They think about French and Urdu, crucifixes and the call to prayer, loincloths and tuxedoes, tacos and pasta. And while these elements of culture are interesting, psychologists understand that culture is something deeper. Culture is a set of shared beliefs, attitudes, self-definitions, and values. Researchers analyzing the psychological dimensions of culture tend to examine how people relate to one another, how they understand themselves, their words, and the things they hold most dear.
One way of understanding cultural groups is to divide them into "individualists" and "collectivists." Individualistic societies are those that think of the individual as the most important basic unit. People in individualistic societies are typically seen as separate, unique, and free to make personal choices, even if they conflict with the desires of the larger group. Members of individualistic societies can usually choose their own spouse, profession, and living quarters. Each person is seen as unique and special. Sound familiar? If you are a reader from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Western Europe, you hail from an individualistic society. Collectivistic societies, on the other hand, think of the group as the most important basic unit. People living in collectivist societies are seen as connected to one another through powerful ties of duty and obligation. Collectivists often work to promote group harmony, even if it means sacrificing their individual desires, because the group is seen as more important than the individual. The group, in fact, defines who the individual is. Individualistic societies tend to suffer from more social ills, such as divorce, suicide, and homelessness, whereas people in collectivistic societies can feel frustrated by their personal sacrifices. But it's not all bad news. Individualists tend to feel creative and enjoy more social freedoms, whereas collectivists often enjoy more extended social support.
The subtle influence of individualism and collectivism extends even to our basic concept of self. Take a moment and consider the unfinished sentence "I am. . ." Think about all the different ways you might answer it. Go ahead and provide a few answers for yourself. Write them down if you like. Researchers using this sentencecompletion task with people from far-flung countries find that people from different cultures approach it in distinct ways. Chinese people (collectivists), for instance, are more likely than Americans (individualists) to complete the sentence in a way that describes their relationship to others or the role they play in the social fabric ("I am a daughter" or "I am a student"), whereas Americans are more likely to describe personal traits ("I am a hard worker" or "I am beautiful"). Folks from these two types of cultures tend to have different ways of thinking about themselves.
Collectivists, who pay more attention to their roles in each social situation, have a tendency to see the "self" as a more fluid concept. In some situations, a person might be outgoing, and in some he or she might be reserved. In some settings, people might be brave, while in others they might be timid. Contrast this with the individualist sense of self, in which people are likely to see their character traits as stable and internal. To individualists, personal qualities like hot-headedness, intelligence, and dedication to hard work are like personality tattoos, fixed in place even across a wide variety of situations. Because - and this is the kicker - most people believe they are good (or at least better than average), individualists enjoy that sense even across diverse social situations. Even when an individualist is sitting passively watching a funny movie, he or she might still regard her- or himself as brave, even though in that moment he might not exhibit any signs of bravery. The individualist can comfort himself with the knowledge that bravery is like water in a camel's hump, stored for when it is needed. That's a pretty good feeling.
It is worth mentioning that individualists and collectivists derive their happiness from somewhat different sources. Collectivists, focused as they are on group harmony, are more likely to feel good when the group they are a part of is getting along well. An extreme example of this tendency comes from one woman Robert spoke with in a village in South India who refused to give him a direct report of her own happiness. "If my sons are happy," she told Robert, "then I am happy." When he pressed her to tell him how she felt in that exact moment, she replied, "You should go ask my husband how he feels right now, and then you will know how I feel." Collectivists are also more likely to feel good when they are contributing to a sense of peace within the group, even if it means fulfilling obligations that interfere with their own personal agenda. Individualists, on the other hand, are more likely to feel good when their uniqueness is exercised or singled out for praise. Individualists tend to become irritated or frustrated when they are forced to place their own desires on the back burner in favor of the needs of others.
If you are an individualist, what goes on inside you - your feelings - are extremely important. For example, if you fall out of love, you are likely to get divorced because your feelings are seen as sufficient reasons for separating. In contrast, collectivists are likely to value obligations in relationships more, and emotional feelings less, and therefore see feelings of love as less critical for continuing marriage. The psychologist Eunkook Suh of Yonsei University in South Korea showed that individualists weight their happy feelings more when reporting life satisfaction, whereas collectivists weight the quality of their relationships more when thinking about their life satisfaction. Thus, not only do individualists and collectivists differ in the types of feelings they most value, but they also differ in terms of what makes life most satisfying.
Individualists like to be part of a group - so long as the group is successful. In a study by Shigehiro Oishi, research assistants counted the number of American college students wearing school sweatshirts on a given day. The day after a major win by one of their university's sports teams, the sweatshirts were common. On the days following a crushing athletic defeat, there were almost no sweatshirt-wearers on campus. Although this might sound disloyal at first blush, consider it in terms of happiness. The students in this study saw, at least subconsciously, an opportunity to boost their happiness by taking pride in their school when such pride was appropriate. On the days when there was little to brag about athletically, the students looked for other ways to feel good about themselves. It wasn't that they were unfaithful to their school, but rather that they chose the most promising source of positivity in any given situation. In short, individualists seem to be on the lookout for happiness, paying att
ention to pleasure and success and able to ignore small influences that might detract from fulfillment. This is, in part, the reason that so many individualistic nations rise to the top of international happiness lists.
Valuing Happiness
Another place in which cultures differ from one another is in the value they put on emotions in general-and happiness in particular. In Western societies, paying attention to the way we feel has become second nature, as is labeling our feelings. But for people in much of the world, feelings are not as important as actions or relationships. One man we spoke to in rural Kenya had difficulty remembering how often he became angry. We tried asking him about his emotions several times. "How often have you been angry this week?" we pried. "Have you felt angry or irritated today?" we asked. He was unable to provide an answer. "I just don't know," he said. "I don't think I have been angry today or this week." Finally, we asked him whether he had ever been in a fistfight. "I was in a fistfight yesterday!" he told us. For this man, events were remembered in terms of actions rather than feelings, and he lacked the habit of labeling his inner states.
Cultures also disagree with one another over which emotions are most desirable. Folks in Western nations, for example, generally think that pride feels good and is appropriate to experience. By pride, we do not mean conceit or putting others down; rather, we mean the feeling of deep satisfaction that comes when a person can claim responsibility for a job well done. Many around the world view this emotion with some condemnation, preferring to shift responsibility, as well as credit, to the larger group. Many Amish people we spoke to during the course of our research, for instance, actively fought against taking personal credit for success in life. Instead, they would grant credit to supportive family, business partners, and God. By contrast, the Maasai often go out of their way to flaunt pride.