Happiness is something that greatly improves the quality of life in each individual. Are we truly able to control our level of happiness? If we are, then this would mean that we can control our quality of life as well. Some psychologists argue that individuals are able to control up to 40% of their happiness, while others reject this idea due to lack of evidence and other controlling factors.
In Schueller and Parks’ article, “The science of Self-Help: Translating Positive Psychology: Research into Increased Individual Happiness” (2014), the psychologists argue that happiness is a factor that can be controlled. In the article, the concept of happiness is divided into two components, “cognitive appraisal that one’s life is good, and reports …show more content…
The criticism is that these psychologists mislead individuals to believe that they have more control over their own happiness than they actually do. Newman and Larsen believe that hereditary, the “hedonic treadmill”, individual uniqueness, and outside factors affect one’s happiness level and that there is not substantial evidence to prove the “positive psychologists’” theory. There has been substantial research to prove that hereditary is directly related to happiness. The heritability of happiness refers to the “variation in the public’s happiness scores that is caused by hereditary factors”. Due to the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike, then two individuals cannot have the same happiness level. Also, the “hedonic treadmill”, states that individuals eventually return to a “set” happiness level after outside events (either positive or negative) affect their well-being and level of …show more content…
In Schueller and Parks’ argument that one can control most of their happiness, they argue that all individuals could be happier if they had access that facilitated happiness. I believe that PPIs and framing techniques can greatly influence temporary happiness and gratitude in small things in everyday life, but will not affect long-term happiness due to the “hedonic treadmill” presented in Newman and Larsen’s argument. I believe that PPIs are similar to outside factors that affect happiness in that they help to deviate from the “hedonic treadmill”, but that most people have a general “set point” of
In Schueller and Parks’ article, “The science of Self-Help: Translating Positive Psychology: Research into Increased Individual Happiness” (2014), the psychologists argue that happiness is a factor that can be controlled. In the article, the concept of happiness is divided into two components, “cognitive appraisal that one’s life is good, and reports …show more content…
The criticism is that these psychologists mislead individuals to believe that they have more control over their own happiness than they actually do. Newman and Larsen believe that hereditary, the “hedonic treadmill”, individual uniqueness, and outside factors affect one’s happiness level and that there is not substantial evidence to prove the “positive psychologists’” theory. There has been substantial research to prove that hereditary is directly related to happiness. The heritability of happiness refers to the “variation in the public’s happiness scores that is caused by hereditary factors”. Due to the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike, then two individuals cannot have the same happiness level. Also, the “hedonic treadmill”, states that individuals eventually return to a “set” happiness level after outside events (either positive or negative) affect their well-being and level of …show more content…
In Schueller and Parks’ argument that one can control most of their happiness, they argue that all individuals could be happier if they had access that facilitated happiness. I believe that PPIs and framing techniques can greatly influence temporary happiness and gratitude in small things in everyday life, but will not affect long-term happiness due to the “hedonic treadmill” presented in Newman and Larsen’s argument. I believe that PPIs are similar to outside factors that affect happiness in that they help to deviate from the “hedonic treadmill”, but that most people have a general “set point” of