Folk theories of the Good Life
Presumably people seek to maximize those aspects that define the good life; therefore, identifying cultural conceptions of the good life is fundamental to a science of well-being. My research examines folk theories of what makes life worth living. Rather than treating folk theories as error-ridden and uninformative, my research views them as a rich source of meaning, representing the intersection of shared beliefs and individual histories.
In a series of studies conducted with Dr. Laura King, I asked participants to make ratings about the desirability and moral goodness of a life as a function of its happiness, meaning, and wealth (King & Napa, 1998). People rated happy and meaningful lives as most desirable and morally good, and they rated happy people as more likely to go to heaven. Whereas researchers previously believed that people value money over happiness, my research shows that people want happiness and meaning more than wealth. In another set of studies, I included effort or challenge as another feature of the good life (Scollon & King, 2005). I found that folk theories equated the good life with the easy life when effort was conceptualized as number hours of work. Effort was rated an important part of a meaningful and happy life only when effort was framed as active engagement that was not energy depleting nor time-consuming. These folk concepts of effort suggest the possibility that people value hard work in the context of the good life, but only if active engagement does not come at the cost of other life interests.
These studies were the first empirical attempts at mapping folk theories of the good life onto the SWB literature. More recently, Dr. Derrick Wirtz and I conducted a cross-cultural study of folk concepts of the good life. Wirtz and Scollon (2012) found that happiness and meaning were the main components of the good life in both Singapore and the US. Remarkably, the effects were virtually the same in the US over a decade later, and after the great financial crisis of 2008. Cultural differences also emerged. Although Singaporeans valued happiness and meaning almost as strongly as the Americans did, wealth also emerged as an important ingredient in their good life. Given the research showing the toxic effects of materialism on subjective well-being, this valuing of wealth could be seen as a clue to why Singaporeans are less happy than Americans (this was shown in that study and in other data I have). Following up on this, we conducted an experiment among Singaporean participants in which we manipulated their perspective to be either 3rd person or 1st person. For the 3rd person manipulation, participants wrote a brief biography of themselves using the 3rd person. For the 1st person manipulation, participants wrote a brief autobiography of themselves using the 1st person. We found that the 3rd person perspective led to a greater emphasis on wealth in the good life. This is consistent with research by Suh (2007) who argued that a focus on the generalized other (i.e., seeing oneself as others see you), causes people to focus on objective or shared notions of what is good (in this case, wealth) as opposed to internal standards of what is good (in this case, happiness).
Presumably people seek to maximize those aspects that define the good life; therefore, identifying cultural conceptions of the good life is fundamental to a science of well-being. My research examines folk theories of what makes life worth living. Rather than treating folk theories as error-ridden and uninformative, my research views them as a rich source of meaning, representing the intersection of shared beliefs and individual histories.
In a series of studies conducted with Dr. Laura King, I asked participants to make ratings about the desirability and moral goodness of a life as a function of its happiness, meaning, and wealth (King & Napa, 1998). People rated happy and meaningful lives as most desirable and morally good, and they rated happy people as more likely to go to heaven. Whereas researchers previously believed that people value money over happiness, my research shows that people want happiness and meaning more than wealth. In another set of studies, I included effort or challenge as another feature of the good life (Scollon & King, 2005). I found that folk theories equated the good life with the easy life when effort was conceptualized as number hours of work. Effort was rated an important part of a meaningful and happy life only when effort was framed as active engagement that was not energy depleting nor time-consuming. These folk concepts of effort suggest the possibility that people value hard work in the context of the good life, but only if active engagement does not come at the cost of other life interests.
These studies were the first empirical attempts at mapping folk theories of the good life onto the SWB literature. More recently, Dr. Derrick Wirtz and I conducted a cross-cultural study of folk concepts of the good life. Wirtz and Scollon (2012) found that happiness and meaning were the main components of the good life in both Singapore and the US. Remarkably, the effects were virtually the same in the US over a decade later, and after the great financial crisis of 2008. Cultural differences also emerged. Although Singaporeans valued happiness and meaning almost as strongly as the Americans did, wealth also emerged as an important ingredient in their good life. Given the research showing the toxic effects of materialism on subjective well-being, this valuing of wealth could be seen as a clue to why Singaporeans are less happy than Americans (this was shown in that study and in other data I have). Following up on this, we conducted an experiment among Singaporean participants in which we manipulated their perspective to be either 3rd person or 1st person. For the 3rd person manipulation, participants wrote a brief biography of themselves using the 3rd person. For the 1st person manipulation, participants wrote a brief autobiography of themselves using the 1st person. We found that the 3rd person perspective led to a greater emphasis on wealth in the good life. This is consistent with research by Suh (2007) who argued that a focus on the generalized other (i.e., seeing oneself as others see you), causes people to focus on objective or shared notions of what is good (in this case, wealth) as opposed to internal standards of what is good (in this case, happiness).