IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v24y2023i5d10.1007_s10902-023-00631-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Convergence of Positivity: Are Happy People All Alike?

Author

Listed:
  • Rumen Iliev

    (Toyota Research Institute)

  • Will Bennis

    (University of New York in Prague)

Abstract

More than a century ago Leo Tolstoy noted that happy families tend to be more similar to each other than unhappy families. Was this just a cognitive illusion, driven by his mind’s predisposition to see positive entities as more similar to each other, or did he make a profound observation about the world? If it is true, is the phenomenon limited to happiness, or is it a characteristic of positive traits more generally? This question has received attention in multiple fields, but not in psychology. We ran five studies, testing the more general hypothesis that people who share some positive individual-difference trait are more alike than those who do not (The Convergence of Positivity Hypothesis), and we consistently found empirical support for it. Happier, healthier, and richer people were more alike in their personality, values, and in various other domains. The research approach we followed here departs from traditional behavioral science methods and proposes a different level of analysis, where valence and directionality play a central role. We speculate about why this pattern might exist and about the boundary conditions, including whether it extends beyond individual differences to a broader set of complex systems where positivity can be defined.

Suggested Citation

  • Rumen Iliev & Will Bennis, 2023. "The Convergence of Positivity: Are Happy People All Alike?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1643-1662, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:24:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-023-00631-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-023-00631-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-023-00631-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-023-00631-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Lauriola & Luca Iani, 2015. "Does Positivity Mediate the Relation of Extraversion and Neuroticism with Subjective Happiness?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Yeon Soon Shin & Yael Niv, 2021. "Biased evaluations emerge from inferring hidden causes," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 1180-1189, September.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    5. Michael Brusco & J Dennis Cradit & Douglas Steinley, 2021. "A comparison of 71 binary similarity coefficients: The effect of base rates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    2. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    3. Epton, Tracy & Ghio, Daniela & Ballard, Lisa M. & Allen, Sarah F. & Kassianos, Angelos P. & Hewitt, Rachael & Swainston, Katherine & Fynn, Wendy Irene & Rowland, Vickie & Westbrook, Juliette & Jenkins, 2022. "Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    4. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    5. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Pipke, David, 2021. "Kind or contented? An investigation of the gift exchange hypothesis in a natural field experiment in Colombia," OSF Preprints xmjaq, Center for Open Science.
    6. Reyes, René & Nelson, Harry & Zerriffi, Hisham, 2021. "How do decision makers´ ethnicity and religion influence the use of forests? Evidence from Chile," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    7. James Alm & Antoine Malézieux, 2021. "40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 699-750, September.
    8. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2012. "Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    11. James Alm & Lilith Burgstaller & Arrita Domi & Amanda März & Matthias Kasper, 2023. "Nudges, Boosts, and Sludge: Using New Behavioral Approaches to Improve Tax Compliance," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Sven Grüner & Mira Lehberger & Norbert Hirschauer & Oliver Mußhoff, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 471-504, July.
    13. Gilles Grolleau & Angela Sutan & Sana El Harbi & Marwa Jedidi, 2018. "Do We Need More Time To Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 400-409, October.
    14. Stroh, Tim & Mention, Anne-Laure & Duff, Cameron, 2023. "The impact of evolved psychological mechanisms on innovation and adoption: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    15. Fehr, Ernst & Hoff, Karla, 2011. "Tastes, castes, and culture : the influence of society on preferences," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5760, The World Bank.
    16. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    17. Yates, J. Frank & de Oliveira, Stephanie, 2016. "Culture and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 106-118.
    18. Immanuel Lampe & Daniel Würtenberger, 2019. "Loss Aversion And The Demand For Index Insurance," Working Papers on Finance 1907, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    19. Dold, Malte & Lewis, Paul, 2022. "F.A. Hayek on the political economy of endogenous preferences: An historical overview and contemporary assessment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 104-119.
    20. Maroussia Favre & Amrei Wittwer & Hans Rudolf Heinimann & Vyacheslav I Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2016. "Quantum Decision Theory in Simple Risky Choices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:24:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s10902-023-00631-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.