Literature Science of Happiness
Week 1 – Why happiness deserves scientific interest
o Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., & Napa Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the
adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305-314.
o Lucas, R. E. (2018). Reevaluating the strengths and weaknesses of self-report measures of
subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.),
o Norrish, J.M., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2008). Is the study of happiness a worthy scientific
pursuit? Social Indicators Research, 87, 393-407.
o Scollon, C. N. (2018). Non-traditional measures of subjective well-being and their validity: A
review. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
o Tov, W. (2018). Well-being concepts and components. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.),
Handbook of well-being.
Week 2 – The Philosophy of happiness
o Kesebir, P. (2018). Scientific answers to the timeless philosophical question of happiness. In
E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
o McMahon, D. M. (2018). From the Paleolithic to the present: Three revolutions in the global
history of happiness. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
o Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics (pp. 30-41). Boulder: Westview Press
Week 3 – The psychology of happiness: Theories of well-being
o Heintzelman, S. J. (2018). Eudaimonia in the contemporary science of subjective well-being:
Psychological well-being, self-determination, and meaning in life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L.
Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being
o Margolis, S. ,& Lyubomirsky, S. (2018).Cognitive out looks and well-being. InE. Diener, S.
Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
o Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. current
directions in psychological science, 14, 131-134
Week 4 – Very happy people: striving for greater happiness
o Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81-84.
o Gruber, J., Mauss, I.B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why
happiness is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 222-233.
o Layous, K. (2018). Malleability and intentional activities. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.),
Handbook of well-being.
o Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2021). Revisiting the sustainable happiness model and pie
chart: Can happiness be successfully pursued? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16, 145-
154.
o Stone, B. M., & Parks, A. C. (2018). Cultivating subjective well-being through positive
psychological interventions. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
Week 5 – Is improving happiness a task of government?
o Flavin, P., Pacek, A.C., & Radcliff, B. (2014). Assessing the impact of the size and scope of
government on human well-being. Social Forces, 92, 1241-1258.
o Graham, C., Laffan, K., & Pinto, S. (2018). Well-being in metrics and policy. Science,
362(6412), 287-288.
o Morrison, M., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Subjective well-being and national satisfaction:
Findings from a worldwide survey. Psychological Science, 22, 166-171.
o Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Can and should happiness be a policy goal? Policy Insights from
the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 195–203.
o Sim, B., & Diener, E. (2018). Accounts of psychological and emotional well-being for policy
purposes. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well- being.
,Week 6 – Does saving the planes make you happy?
o Kasser, T. (2018). Materialism and living well. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook
of well-being.
o Brosch, T. (2021). Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: A
review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 15-21
o Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2013). Explaining the paradox: How pro-
environmental behaviour can both thwart and foster well-being. Sustainability, 5, 1372-1386.
Week 7 – Can money buy happiness?
o Tay, L., Zyphur, M., & Batz, C. L. (2018). Income and subjective well-being: Review, synthesis,
and future research. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
o Easterlin, R. A., Angelescu McVey, L., Switek, M. ,Sawangfa, O, & Smith Zweig, J. (2010). The
happiness–income paradox revisited. PNAS, 107(12), 22463- 22468.
Week 8 – Me, myself, and I: Happiness and social relations
o Gable, S. L., & Bromberg, C. (2018). Healthy social bonds: A necessary condition for well-
being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being.
o Helliwell, J. F., Aknin, L. B., Shiplett, H., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2018). Social capital and
prosocial behavior as sources of well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of
well-being.
,Week 1 – Why happiness deserves scientific interest
Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., & Napa Scollon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the
adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305-314.
Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revisiting the adaptation theory of well-being
According to the hedonic treadmill model, good and bad events temporarily affect happiness, but
people quickly adapt back to hedonic neutrality. This implies that individual and societal efforts to
increase happiness are doomed to failure. This indicates that there are 5 important revisions needed
for the treadmill model:
1. Individuals’ set points are not hedonically neutral
2. People have different set points, which are partly dependent on their temperaments
3. A single person may have multiple happiness set points: different components of well-being
such as pleasant emotions, unpleasant emotions, and life satisfaction can move in different
directions
4. Well-being set points can change under some conditions
5. Individuals differ in their adaptation to events, with some individuals changing their set point
and others not changing in reaction to some external event
A model of subjective well-being (Brickman and Campbell 1971): Hedonic treadmill, in which
processes similar to sensory adaptation occur when people experience emotional reactions to life
events. Brickman and Campbell proposed in de original treadmill theory that people briefly react to
good and bad events, but in a short time they return to neutrality. The idea of hedonic adaptation
was appealing because it offered an explanation for the observation that people appear to be
relatively stable in happiness despite changes in fortune.
Revision 1: nonneutral set points
Most people are happy most of the time. If people adapt and return to baselinf, it is a positve rather
than a neutral one.
Revision 2: Individual set points
If people do have set points, they vary considerably across individuals. These individual differences
are due to inborn, personality-based influences. Personality factor may predispose individuals to
experience different levels of well-being
Revision 3: multiple set points
The global category of happiness is composed of separable well-being variables. It is important to
note that these variables sometimes move in different directions over time. The idea of a unitary set
point is not tenable, because positive and negative emotions might both decline over time in tandem
or life satisfaction might move upward while positive emotions decrease. Not only do the various
well-being components change in different ways over the course of the life span, but changes in one
domain do not fully correspond to changes in other domains
Revision 4: happiness can change
If there are strong national differences in well-being and these differences can be predicted from
objective characteristics of those nations, then this would suggest that the stable external
circumstances that vary across nations have a lasting impact on happiness. Long-term levels of
happiness do change for some individuals. To determine whether adaptation has occurred, it is
necessary to compare individuals who have experienced an event or life circumstance with those
who have not, ideally following the same individuals over time.
Revision 5: individual differences in adaptation
, In longitudinal studies, the size and even the direction of the change in life satisfaction varied
considerably across individuals. The standard deviation for the amount of change that occurred after
the event was almost as large as the standard deviation for baseline levels.
Implications of the revised model
Adaptation processes can explain why many factors often have only small influences on happiness,
people tend to adapt to these conditions over time. But more flexible processes are likely to be
involved, and these processes may vary across events and individuals or even within the same
individual over time.
