Essay: Relationship between happiness and social interactions/relationships (literature review)

Everyone strives for happiness and it is no secret that it can often be found in others. A lot of research has been done to study the link between one’s happiness and their social interactions and relationships. For this literature review, we have been given three primary sources. The topic deals with spending on others compared to spending on yourself (Dunn, Aknin & Norton, 2008), the difference in spending on strong or weak social ties (Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn & Norton, 2011) and finally the reciprocity of prosocial behaviour and positive affect (Snippe et al., 2017). In this literature review, I will analyse these three studies in chronological order, since the newest research builds upon the previous.
The first article suggests, that how we spend our money is at least as important as how much we earn (“Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness” Dunn, Aknin & Norton, 2008). They hypothesise that spending money on others has more impact on happiness than spending on oneself. In order to find out, they conduct three studies. The first one is a cross-sectional study with a sample size of 632 national representative American adults (55% females). The participants were asked to state their income and their general happiness. An index of their personal spending as well as prosocial spending was constructed. The results of the regression showed, that happiness is unrelated to personal spending, while showing a relation to prosocial spending. In the second study, a longitudinal study, 16 employees received a bonus from their company. Happiness and expenses reports were conducted one month before as well as six to eight weeks after the receipt. Again, two indices for personal spending and prosocial spending were calculated. The regression from the before and after reports revealed that prosocial spending was the only significant predictor of happiness, along with income as an additional predictor. In the third part, an experiment, 46 participants rated their happiness in the morning. They were then given either $5 or $20 and were randomly assigned to either a prosocial or personal spending group. After they had spent that money as instructed, they were tested again. The total of four different conditions was then analysed with ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). The findings showed that prosocial spending reported higher post-windfall happiness. All three studies agree with previous research and show, that people tend to overlook the benefits of prosocial spending.
The conducted study is based on the previous research, saying how income has a solid effect on happiness, especially once “basic needs are met” (Dunn, Aknin & Norton, 2008). This implies the question of how the effects would be if the provision with basic supplies is not granted. This phenomenon happens all over the world in large numbers- even in industrialised countries, and therefore shouldn’t be underestimated. Besides, there is a difference in spending your own money versus spending money you have been given. When it is your own you still have the choice to keep it or decide what to do with it, but you are not forced to buy something. Expecting participants to react the same way if they necessary have to buy something assumably evokes a different reaction. These unnatural circumstances question the operationalisation of the study.
The second article is named “It’s the Recipient That Counts: Spending Money on Strong Social Ties Leads to Greater Happiness than Spending on Weak Social Ties” (Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn & Norton, 2011). It builds upon the previous research stating that spending on others is more beneficial for our happiness than spending on ourselves. Now, this researcher goes one step further and claims, that on top of that the spending target also – other than ourselves- matters for happiness. The researcher hypothesises, that participants would be happier after recalling spending money on strong social ties versus spending on weak social ties. Previous research regarding that topic is very certain about the relationship between well-being and social relationships, but does the gained happiness differ? In order to find out, a group of 80 college students (68% female) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: Strong or weak social ties. Then they were asked to recall the last time they spent around $20 on that type of person. The reports of those recalls were evaluated using PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) and delivered a positive affect score for each participant. An independent sample t-test revealed, that in fact, happiness is greater after spending on strong social ties. An additive test was done to determine, whether intimacy or relationship status was the better indicator for the classification of strong or weak social ties. This test revealed that intimacy was the stronger variable. Thus, spending on stronger ties high in intimacy apparently results in the happiest people.
This study used a sample of 80 people from a university, which is part of the educated, industrialised, democratic and rich population, which is a fairly small percentage of the worldwide population. Consequently, $20 is of a completely different value for them compared to developing countries. Therefore the findings are neither representative nor generally applicable. On top of that, there were unequal time intervals between the actual event and the recall, which might have falsified the results. There were tests done proving the robustness of the variable despite recent or old recalls. However, in the discussion part of the paper, the researcher even suggests a follow-up study investigating the effects immediately after spending.
The last primary source is called “The Reciprocity of Prosocial Behaviour and Positive Affect in Daily Life” (Snippe et al., 2017). The goal of this research is to find out about the two-way relation of prosocial behaviour and positive affect (PA). Furthermore, it considers, how the personality traits Neuroticism and Extraversion moderate in this relation. The study consists of two parts. In the first part, a convenience sample of 629 Dutch people (83% female, 83% highly educated) was created. In this longitudinal study, participants monitored their prosocial behaviour through an electronic diary three times a day for 30 days. In the second part, a cross-sectional study, a sub-sample of 322 participants filled in the NEO- Five-Factor Inventory to assess the two personality traits. Analyses using multilevel autoregressive models (STATA XTMIXED) showed, that within-person internal consistency was very good. Furthermore, it showed a bidirectional association between PA and prosocial behaviour. On top of that, the impact of prosocial behaviour on PA was stronger for participants with higher Neuroticism levels, but there was no effect through Extraversion.
Given that the research is based on a convenience sample, the results are not that clear. Participants must not be engaged in shift work in order to take part in this study, which limits the eligibility of possible participants. This means, that a big part of the sample probably does either not work at all or is self-employed. We may assume, that the sample is therefore differently engaged in prosocial behaviour and has a different positive effect in their daily life compared to the general population. In fact the sample portrays 83% females and 83% highly educated participants. All together, making the representativeness of the sample constrained again. Secondly, there were only two personality traits analysed. In the introduction, previous research about Neuroticism is mentioned, nothing about extraversion though. Neurotic people are more likely to experience intense feelings, but Extroversion is the opposite of Introversion. Hence, the choice of personality traits seems random. When all five main personality traits were assessed with the test, they all could have been used to make the result even more meaningful. Finally, the construct validity seems questionable, since the study is constructed with reporting delay. Activities and behaviours can be reported retrospectively, but it is impossible to precisely report feelings and cognitions for the past six-hour interval. Therefore the variable has not been measured in the best possible way.
To sum up the review, all three studies have given us new introspection about how to increase obdurate happiness. It is obvious that sources and capacities of researchers are limited and that generalisability does not always have to be the priority of a study. Moreover, a perfect external validity simply does not exist and these three studies all provide the necessary representativeness. The operationalisation in psychological studies is not without implications, since measuring and visualising of the variables is not as easy. Hence we have more capacity left to do follow up studies about a topic that is of major importance as it pertains all of us.
2019-1-9-1547058596