Ways to Greater Happiness: A Delphi Study. Dan Buettner, Toben Nelson & Ruut Veenhoven. Journal of Happiness Studies volume 21, pages 2789–2806. Feb 5 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-019-00199-3
Abstract: In the first round of this Delphi study 14 experts suggested strategies for improving life-satisfaction. In a second round, experts rated these strategies for (a) effectiveness, (b) feasibility and (c) cost-effectiveness. They considered 56 strategies policy makers can use to raise average happiness in a nation and 68 ways in which individuals can raise their own happiness. Experts were informed about the average ratings made by the panel and about the arguments advanced. Then, in a third round, experts made their final judgments. Summed ratings for average effectiveness and feasibility of the strategies ranged between 8.4 and 4.9 on scale 2–10, which means that most of the recommendations were deemed suitable. Agreement was slightly higher on policy strategies than on individual ways to greater happiness. Policy strategies deemed the most effective and feasible are: (1) investing in happiness research, (2) support of vulnerable people and (3) improving the social climate, in particular by promoting voluntary work and supporting non-profits. Individual strategies deemed most effective are: (a) investing in social networks, (b) doing meaningful things and (c) caring for one’s health.
Discussion
Above, we summarized the experts’ responses, focusing on strategies deemed both effective and feasible. Let us now take a helicopter view of the results. Below, we will first consider the differences between the view taken by experts and prevailing public opinion on ways to greater happiness. We then dwell on the difference in views among experts; we set out to establish consensus but find much disagreement. Next, we consider possible ideological bias in the expert ratings; could their reading of facts be influenced by their political preferences? Lastly, we propose an agenda for further synthetic research on ways to greater happiness.
Differences with Common Views on Ways to Greater Happiness
The results of this study will not surprise most of our colleague researchers, since they reflect the current state of the art. Still, some may have expected greater consensus than appears from the ratings. There will be more news for lay people, since many of the recommendations made by the experts are absent in public opinion polls on perceived sources of happiness.
Discrepancy in Expert-Lay View on Ways to Raise Happiness in the Nation
Studies on perceived sources of happiness in the general public are listed in the Bibliography of Happiness (Veenhoven 2017c), in the subject section ‘Views on happiness in public opinion’.
We acknowledged this literature in the comments below.
Expert’s views fit common sense with respect to (a) reducing unemployment, (b) creating a supportive social climate and (c) providing minimum income security, (d) free health care and free education and (e) investing in clean air.
A surprise may be in the high rating of (f) good governance, the functioning of bureaucracy in particular, though corruption figures in some polls as a source of unhappiness. Lay people may not expect that experts rate (f) more happiness research highest, as they will think that experts know everything already.
Things mentioned by the experts, that may not be expected by the public are; (g) increased taxes, (h) prioritize mental health care and (i) bringing life skills into schools.
Lay-people may be surprised to see that experts disagree so much in their effectiveness ratings of (j) improving work conditions, (k) reducing unemployment and (l) prioritize preventive healthcare, in particular (m) healthy living.
Discrepancy in Expert-Lay Views on Ways to Greater Happiness for One-Self
Studies on perceived sources of one’s own happiness i are listed in the Bibliography of Happiness (Veenhoven 2017c), in the subject section ‘Views on one’s own happiness’. What are the similarities and differences with the expert’s recommendations?
The expert recommendations fit public opinion with respect to importance of (a) social bonds, family in particular, (b) an active life-style and (c) a green home environment. Expert’s ratings also fit lay-people’s majority view that (c) building wealth is not required for a happy life.
Expert’s ratings also fit common-sense view that no greater happiness is to be expected from following trendy alternative life-style advice, such as (d) eliminate screens, (e) create a flow-room in your house or (f) become a vegan. Likewise, lay-people may be equally skeptical about the effectiveness of psychological training as most of the experts are.
The expert’s opinion that (g) children do not add to happiness, differs from the dominant view in public opinion, though this counter-intuitive finding has received much attention in the media. There is no strong public opinion on the effect on happiness of (h) self-employment, but lay-people will be surprised to see that experts differ so much on this issue.
Why Not More Agreement?
The prime aim of this study was to assess scientific consensus on ways to greater happiness. We found considerable agreement among our experts, but also much disagreement, as can be seen from the many red colored cells in Tables 2 and 3. Why is there so much disagreement among experts?
One reason is in the maturity of this research field. Happiness research is new, taking off in the 1990s, and many issues have not yet had sufficient research for the answers to become crystallized. This is why reviewers disagree so often (cf. Sect. 1) and why, for getting an overview, we resorted to the Delphi method.
Another reason may be found in disciplinary differences in our panel of experts, in particular between economists and psychologists, each drawing on a somewhat different research literature. The divergence in effectiveness ratings for life-coaching and psychological exercises may results from this.
One more reason lies in the questions we presented the experts. We asked them for ways to greater happiness that apply for all countries and all individuals, that is, one-size-fits-all recommendations. We did so, because we wanted to grasp consensus about universal conditions. Yet, in reality, conditions for happiness differ considerably between and within countries.
Leftish Bias?
Some of the strategies endorsed by the experts fit a left wing socialist-political agenda, such as (a) free health care and free education, (b) minimum income security, (c) increased taxes and (d) favor economic stability over growth. Yet experts do not cherish all leftish ideas, given their low ratings for (e) reduction of income inequality and (f) counter-balancing global capitalism. In their rating of individual strategies, the experts also do not endorse less work or lavish spending. Note that experts were asked to judge ways to greater happiness based on their scientific knowledge, not to present their ideological preferences.
Future Research
This study reflects the views of leading experts on happiness at this moment. Since much progress is made in this research field, it would be interesting to repeat this study every 10 years.
A possible addition can be, to run parallel studies among policy-makers, practitioners in the field of life-coaching and the public. This would provide us a better view on the difference between current beliefs about ways to greater happiness and established facts on that matter.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment