Happiness-Suicide Paradox and Boredom
-
Upload
lmlockridge -
Category
Documents
-
view
38 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Happiness-Suicide Paradox and Boredom
1Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
Because Nothing Ever Happens Here: A Look At Boredom and the Happiness-Suicide Paradox
Lindsey M. Lockridge
University of Alabama
2Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
Because Nothing Ever Happens Here: A Look At Boredom and the Happiness-Suicide Paradox
“We’re running down the streets in our underwear, because nothing ever happens here.”
What at first seems like a silly song written by Icelandic electropop band FM Belfast turns out to
be a rather interesting insight into a curious problem known as the Happiness-Suicide Paradox –
a theory which states that happier countries have higher suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Iceland –
along with its northern neighbors Sweden, Denmark, and Norway – ranks among the top ten
happiest countries, according to a meta-analysis conducted by psychologist Adrian White. White
(2006) analyzed data from UNESCO, the CIA, the New Economics Foundation, the WHO, the
Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer, and the UNHDR to create the
first-ever “world map of happiness,” ranking Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden 1st, 4th, and 7th,
respectively. Data from the 2012 Prosperity Index, combining factors such as economy,
governance, education, health, and personal freedom, shows a similar trend, with Norway,
Denmark, and Sweden taking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and Iceland dragged down to 15th only by its poor
economy.
On the other hand, despite high levels of happiness and life satisfaction, a number of
studies have shown that these same countries also have relatively high suicide rates – the
paradox at the focal point of this paper, but one that still remains poorly understood. The
question stands: why? Theories have been tossed around from seasonal affective disorder due to
dark winters in Scandinavia to differing attitudes about suicide. Until recently, the happiness-
suicide paradox has been examined only as a comparison of various countries, but the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco narrowed the scope to a single nation – the United States – and
found the pattern to be the same (Daly, Oswald, Wilson, & Wu, 2010). Combining a variety of
factors such as life evaluation, work environment, and healthy behaviors, the Gallup-Healthways
3Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
Well-Being Index created a happiness map similar to the Prosperity Index on Legatum’s website,
but focused on the United States. According to the poll, Western and Midwestern states had the
highest wellbeing scores while the South had the lowest, which has remained fairly consistent
over the past four years (2011). This could be attributed to a difference in region, but the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco adjusted its average life satisfaction and suicide risk scores for
differences in details like age, income, employment, etc., and the correlation persisted (Daly et
al., 2010).
Few studies have looked at the factors underlying this phenomenon. The research thus far
has simply sought to establish its existence; however, the goal of this paper is to delve deeper
and search for a possible explanation.
First of all, several theories about the happiness-suicide paradox have mentioned the
possibility of relative happiness. One of the first studies conducted on this idea interviewed
lottery winners, accidental paraplegics, and people who had neither won a lottery nor were
paralyzed and discovered that the lottery winners found less pleasure in everyday activities after
winning, and that they eventually became habituated to the happiness derived from winning so
that they were no happier than control subjects (Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978).
This sprung future research on adaptation theory – the theory that earlier events serve as
reference for how later events are judged – and it has been held consistently as true. Bowling,
Beehr, Wagner, and Libkuman (2005) describe this in terms of a pay raise: a person who has
worked for years without a raise experiences greater happiness even when given a small raise,
and then adjusts his expectations. It can also be seen between individuals, such as when someone
used to large raises is less happy with a 2% raise than a person who receives the same raise, but
has never before received one (Bowling et al., 2005).
4Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
With that being said, one can infer that those who are well off take their state for granted.
In a country such as Denmark, which scores high on education, income, and health, people
become content and require a greater change in circumstances to feel a higher level of happiness,
as opposed to people in countries that have lower scores in those areas. The opposite is assumed
to be true: those who are happy react more intensely to a negative situation than do those in the
same situation who are less happy. In the context of the happiness-suicide paradox, people in
happy countries and states will react more strongly to a negative stimulus and thus be more prone
to suicidal tendencies.
Studies have also illustrated that humans compare themselves to those by which they are
surrounded. Hagerty (2000) examined the incomes of natural American communities, in which
individuals earning less than the maximum income of the area and surrounded by many others
earning more money felt less happiness than those surrounded by more people earning a similar
income. It might not be a stretch, then, to think that the same can be said about happiness.
Additionally, according to the United States Census, the states with the largest
concentrations of Scandinavian Americans are those scoring among the highest on the happiness
scale, such as Utah, Minnesota, and the Dakotas. This makes one wonder if there is some genetic
factor to the paradox, but the presence of Australia in the Prosperity Index’s rankings throws a
wrench in the idea. Needless to say, it might be an interesting direction for future research.
Returning to FM Belfast’s insight from the beginning of this paper, perhaps the paradox
can be attributed to “nothing ever happening.” A study conducted on youth in rural Australia
found a positive correlation in leisure boredom and heightened risk of suicide (Patterson & Pegg,
1999). In fact, in another Australian study that investigated adolescents in northern Queensland,
Bones, Cheers, and Hill (1993) reported that despite appearing to have access to recreation
5Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
facilities and living in luxurious environments, teenagers responded that there “is not much to
do” and “it’s a boring place.” That data coincides with the happiness-suicide paradox in that the
2012 Prosperity Index has ranked Australia as one of the happiest countries – 4th, to be exact –
but also has high suicide rates.
In several past studies, boredom has been linked to negative affect, including depression,
thought to be derived from a lack of purpose or meaning in life (Fahlman, Mercer, Gaskovski,
Eastwood, & Eastwood, 2009). However, boredom and depression may not be synonymous.
Maltsberger (2000) described an example of a patient who attempted suicide twice, but did not
consider himself depressed, and his psychiatrist did not consider diagnosing him as such.
In another (but similar) vein, Manolito Gallegos (2011) wrote a paper on Schopenhauer’s
theory that happiness only exists as a lack of suffering, and not something that exists positively.
Gallegos reinforced the idea that happiness cannot exist without suffering, defined as being any
sort of pain including that derived from striving toward a goal, and one “cannot get past boredom
without reintroducing [certain forms of suffering]” (Gallegos, 2011). One can draw the
conclusion, then, that people in places with greater self-satisfaction would have less for which to
strive (a form of suffering) and thus be prone to boredom, and that feeling happy is only tangible
in the presence of its opposite. To put it simply, people who are consistently happy may be numb
to that happiness and will resort to suicide not because of hopelessness or sadness, but because
there is nothing else to do.
In fact, as brought up in Fahlman et al.’s (2009) paper, boredom derives from a lack of
fulfillment, so people who do not experience suffering may not be as fulfilled. Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001) examined the theory that bad is stronger than good,
finding that it holds true in almost all possible cases. People are more likely to remember
6Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
negative events, more likely to pay attention to negative traits, more likely to remember criticism
over compliment, etc. (Baumeister et al., 2001). If it is the negative that form more lasting
memories and make stronger impressions, then the lack of such must leave a life feeling empty.
The current study will look at the idea that humans need bad events to happen – if not to them,
then in close proximity – in order to be interested in life.
Two studies will be conducted. Study 1 will be a basic examination, similar to that of
Patterson and Pegg (1999), of American states and their leisure activities. The hypothesis is that
states with higher rates of suicide will report fewer positive leisure activities (such as recreational
sports) and higher rates of leisure boredom. Study 2 will involve a life simulator to evaluate
several hypotheses: 1) people with good lives will report less happiness than people with bad
lives when a good event happens, 2) people with bad lives will report a smaller change in
happiness than people with good lives when a bad event happens, 3) people with good lives will
report decreasing interest when neither good nor bad events happen, and 4) people with good
lives will report the greatest increase in interest when a bad event happens either to them or to
another person. If the hypotheses are true as predicted, then it will provide some evidence to
believe that the happiness-suicide paradox results from boredom rather than happy people feeling
sadness more intensely, as previously thought.
Method
Study 1
Design
Study 1 will be a mail survey in which participants fill out information about recreational
activities in their respective areas. No variable will be manipulated, as the survey will be used
7Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
only to look for a trend in suicide rates and recreational activities based on state. The questions
will include what types of activities one has available and one’s own opinion of the activities.
Participants
Surveys will be sent to inhabitants of all states to gather as representative a sample as
possible. No incentive or compensation will be rewarded.
Materials/Measures
The survey will include basic demographics, such as age, gender, race, region (South,
Northeast, Midwest, and West), and state of residence, and ask questions regarding recreational
facilities in the area. Questions will ask for information about what types of activities are
available, what types of activities the participant regularly engages in, how enjoyable the
activities are, how accessible they are, and how interesting or fulfilling one finds living in that
particular area.
Procedure
A survey will be sent out to every American address and given a 3-month deadline to
complete and return it. All surveys will be sealed in an envelope with stamps and empty
envelope to encourage a higher return rate. A consent form and information sheet stating that the
prime interest of the study is to compare the recreational activities available to people in different
states will be on top, and the questions will begin with demographic information, followed by
most general factual information (such as nearby recreational activities and facilities) and ending
with the participant’s evaluation of the activities available to him based on a 1 – 5 numerical
scale with 1 being not at all interesting and 5 being very interesting. Contact information in case
the participant has any questions or concerns will be available on the final page.
Results
8Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
The data will be collected and analyzed using a Pearsons correlation for recreational
activity and suicide rate (data from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco [2010]), and
interest and suicide rate. Then it will be analyzed using a one-way ANOVA for region. The
results from the Pearsons correlation will demonstrate that there is a negative relationship
between suicide rate and amount of recreational activity, as well as a negative relationship
between suicide rate and interest. People reporting more recreational activity and interest should
come from areas with lower suicide rates. Secondly, the ANOVA should reveal that there is a
significant difference in interest per region and that the West and Midwest should have the
lowest interest scores in order to follow the hypothesis that suicide in happy areas is contributed
to boredom.
Study 2
Design
Study 2 will examine a simulated life (good or bad) with the potential for four conditions
(good event, bad event, no event, and bad event happening to neighbor) in a between-subjects 2
x 4 factorial design. Each participant will be randomly assigned to either a good or a bad
simulated life, and then will be assigned one of the four event conditions. The dependent
variables will be how interested in and how happy the participant is with his simulated life,
which will be gathered from a series of questionnaires administered periodically throughout the
course of the experiment.
Participants
Approximately 120 participants will be recruited from a convenience sample from a large
southeastern university. All participants will be enrolled in the university and will mostly be
9Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
between the ages of 18 and 22. Participants will be recruited from the psychology subject pool
and will participate in order to fulfill a research credit requirement.
Materials/Measures
Survey. A university-wide survey will be sent out to establish an average ranking for a
selection of 10 good events and 10 bad events. The questionnaire will simply ask participants to
rank a total of 20 events (10 good and 10 bad ranked separately) for what they consider to be the
best thing to happen to a person and what they consider to be the worst thing to happen to a
person. Good events will be events such as having a child, getting married, receiving a
promotion, and winning the lottery while the bad events will include losing a job, getting a
divorce, losing one’s house, and the sudden death of a loved one. The data will be collected and
averaged to determine the single-best and single-worst event to happen to a person to be used in
the simulator for the actual experiment.
Pretest. All recruited participants will be given a pretest to determine what they consider
to be a good or a bad life. The top answers for both will be collected and used to create the good
life and bad life simulations. The participants will also be required to fill out basic demographic
information such as age, race, and gender.
Life simulation. Studies have shown that video games are widely popular in the United
States, with around 40% of the adult population playing them (Slagle, 2006). Simulation games
are particularly useful as learning tools and provide true-to-life experiences (Sitzmann, 2011).
Additionally, games like the Sims are addicting because they allow for the player to synthesize
her own version of real life with the game’s version of real life (Nutt & Railton, 2010). With
these studies in mind, the current study will implement a life simulator similar to the popular PC
10Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
game the Sims in order to simulate a good or a bad life for each participant. Each life will have
one of the four conditions randomly programmed into it.
Progress log. Each participant will be asked to fill out a short daily log about his or her
experience with the game. The questions will be basic and will focus primarily on how happy
with and how interested the participant is in his simulated life.
Post-test. A post-test will be administered to determine the overall satisfaction each
participant had with his or her simulated life, but will also be used to look for any potential
distress the participant might have felt with certain events. Another several questions will be
asked to determine how invested the participant was in his or her character.
Procedure
Each participant will be asked to fill out the pretest to determine the components of the
good and bad lives used for the experiment. After the data has been collected, a default good life
and a default bad life will be created. All “good” lives will have the same starting components
and all “bad” lives will have the same starting components. Each participant will then be
introduced to the program by an experimenter who will go over the consent form and
information sheet and will then explain the controls of the game. The experimenter will explain
that the purpose is to determine how people create their own simulated lives so as to avoid
demand characteristics. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two default life
settings. Each participant will create his or her own character (customize appearance and name)
and will be asked to come in to the lab three times a week for an hour a day to play. At the end of
each session, each participant will fill out a daily log that tracks his happiness and interest in his
simulated life.
11Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
After two weeks, each participant will encounter randomly one of three events. In the
case of the fourth situation, nothing will happen and so will serve as a control. Those in the good
event condition will experience the event determined to be most good as decided by the
university-wide survey, those in the bad event condition will experience the event determined to
be most bad as decided by the university-wide survey, and those in the proximal bad event will
not experience the event directly. Participants in this condition, however, will hear about the bad
event happening to his or her neighbor.
After another week, the experiment will end and participants will be given a final post-
test to ensure that they did not experience any distress or negative emotions. The post-test will
also be used to evaluate the participant’s overall satisfaction with his simulated life and how
invested he was in his character. An experimenter will then debrief the participant, answer any
questions and address any concerns, and then the participant will be thanked.
Results
The data collected will be analyzed using a between subjects ANOVA. How invested a
participant was in his or her simulated life will also be factored in. The results from this analysis
will demonstrate a main effect for the event condition. If the results follow the hypotheses, then
1) participants in the good life condition will report less happiness than people with the bad life
condition when a good event happens, 2) participants in the bad life condition will report a
smaller change in happiness than people with good life condition when a bad event happens, 3)
participants in the good life condition will report decreasing interest when neither good nor bad
events happen, and 4) participants in the good life condition will report the greatest increase in
interest when a bad event happens either to them or to another person.
Discussion
12Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
In the case of study 1, if the hypothesis holds true that areas with less recreational
activities have higher rates of suicide, then improvement can be made in those areas to focus on
creating new recreational activities, as suggested by Patterson and Pegg (1999). Regions such as
the West and Midwest will show a lower rate of interesting recreational activities, which will
negatively correlate with suicide rate. However, due to data being collected by mail survey,
results may not be as representative as expected as it is highly possible that not all surveys will
be completed and returned. With study 2, if the hypotheses hold true, then it opens the door to
future research on the happiness-suicide paradox and boredom. This suggests that despite living
a good, healthy life, one can still fell unsatisfied without negative things. This follows
Schopenhauer’s theory that happiness cannot exist without suffering (Gallegos, 2011). In the
case of the person living a good life with neither good nor bad events happening, it is expected
that his interest will slowly decrease over time, as he has nothing to strive for. However, if a
person in a good life experiences a good event, his happiness will not increase very much, just as
a person in a bad life who experiences a bad event will not have much of a change in happiness,
as proposed by Bowling et al. (2005). This information may help to improve therapy for
depression, such as placing depressed patients among others who have similar life satisfaction
rather than with happier individuals.
Study 2 is not without drawbacks, however, and one of the biggest is that the participants
may come from various backgrounds and thus view good and bad events differently, even after
being evaluated with the pretest. On the other hand, if the experiment proves successful, future
research can be directed to an evaluation on a nationwide level to determine any differences in
how people handle good and bad events based on state/region.
13Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
References
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
Bone, R., Cheers, B., & Hill, R. (1993). Paradise lost – young people’s experience of rural life in
the Whitsunday Shire. Rural Society, 3, 1-7.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M. (2005). Adaptation-level
theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability
of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1044-1053.
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is
happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 917-927.
Daly, M. C., Oswald, A. J., Wilson, D., & Wu, S. (2010). The happiness-suicide paradox.
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper Series.
Gallup, Inc. (2011). Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2012, from
http://www.well-beingindex.com/
Gallegos, M. (2011). The negative ontology of happiness: A Schopenhauerian argument. Logoi-
Heidelberger Graduiertenjournal für Geisteswissenschaften, 2.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer, K. B., Gaskovski, P., Eastwood, A. E., & Eastwood, J. D. (2009). Does
a lack of life meaning cause boredom? Results from psychometric, longitudinal, and
experimental analyses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(3), 307-340.
FM Belfast. (2008). Underwear. On How to make friends [CD]. Reykjavík, Iceland: World
Champion Records.
Hagerty, M. R. (2000). Social comparisons of income in one’s community: Evidence from
national surveys of income and happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
14Running Head: HAPPINESS-SUICIDE PARADOX AND BOREDOM
78(4), 764-771.
Legatum Institute. (2012). The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index Table Rankings.
Retrieved Nov. 26, 2012, from http://www.prosperity.com/Ranking.aspx
Maltsberger, J. T. (2000). Case consultation: Mansur Zaskar: A man almost bored to death.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 30(1), 1113-1119.
Nutt, D., & Railton, D. (2003). The Sims: Real life as genre. Information Communication &
Society, 6(4), 577-592.
Patterson, I., & Pegg, S. (1999). Nothing to do. Youth Studies Australia, 18(2), 24-30.
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-
based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528.
Slagle, M. (2006). Poll: 4 in 10 Americans play video games [electronic version]. Washington
Post. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2012, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700172.h
tml
University of Leicester (2006). Psychologist produces the first-ever ‘world-map of happiness.’
ScienceDaily. Retrieved Nov. 26, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com
/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm