merriam-websters:
1. obsolete : good fortune : prosperity
2. a state of well-being and contentment : joy ; a pleasurable or satisfying experience
3: felicity, aptness
dictionary.com:
1. the quality or state of being happy.
2. good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.
lundi 10 décembre 2007
media influence on body image of children and adolescents
Lawrie, Z., Sulilvan, E., Davies, P., & Hill, R. (2006, October). Media influence on the body image of children and adolescents. Eating Disorders, 14(5), 355-364. Retrieved December 10, 2007. doi:10.1080/10640260600952506
the media often serves as a child's reference for the way the world works. a study focused on adolescents and the influence of media to put pressure on them to be skinnier or fatter or more muscular.
in not scientific jargon: girls found that the media was influencing them to be slimmer over gaining weight and becoming more muscular. Also, older teens found that the media influenced them more. This comes with puberty and increasing body awareness, report the study's authors.
the media has created an ideal body which has changed over time. nowadays, women and men both are being shown slimmer models, which pushes them to lose weight themselves. they see the models on tv or in magazines, and take these to be ideal. the media in this way is the ultimate informer on how society is, so teens and children learn gender roles and how to look from mimicking the peope they see on tv.
the skinny stereotype has been linked to eating disorders, especially in females. when they don't look like the women they see on the cover of magazines, they become disappointed in themselves and work harder--by dieting, exercizing, and otherwise--to become like the ideal woman (as reported in the study). they are constantly chasing an ideal that is difficult to reach, and every day they don't become "the perfect woman" is another day they fail. all this failure leads adolescents to be unhappy with themselves. this is a way that global media makes people unhappy.
the media often serves as a child's reference for the way the world works. a study focused on adolescents and the influence of media to put pressure on them to be skinnier or fatter or more muscular.
It was not surprising that the girls
studied here agreed to a greater extent that the media was influencing them
to be slimmer than either of the other media influences and an age relationship
was also found whereby agreement with this statement increased with
increasing age.
in not scientific jargon: girls found that the media was influencing them to be slimmer over gaining weight and becoming more muscular. Also, older teens found that the media influenced them more. This comes with puberty and increasing body awareness, report the study's authors.
the media has created an ideal body which has changed over time. nowadays, women and men both are being shown slimmer models, which pushes them to lose weight themselves. they see the models on tv or in magazines, and take these to be ideal. the media in this way is the ultimate informer on how society is, so teens and children learn gender roles and how to look from mimicking the peope they see on tv.
the skinny stereotype has been linked to eating disorders, especially in females. when they don't look like the women they see on the cover of magazines, they become disappointed in themselves and work harder--by dieting, exercizing, and otherwise--to become like the ideal woman (as reported in the study). they are constantly chasing an ideal that is difficult to reach, and every day they don't become "the perfect woman" is another day they fail. all this failure leads adolescents to be unhappy with themselves. this is a way that global media makes people unhappy.
dimanche 9 décembre 2007
Media effects: Advances in theory and research
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43-68). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from Google Scholar database: http://scholar.google.com
the media doesn't necessarily tell people what to think, but it does tell them what to think about (bernard cohen, 1963)
chapter on growing up with television: cultivation process
television is the ultimate storyteller. it is "the primary common source of socialization and everyday information."
both elites and common people share the same shows. as the tv shows and other media on television continue to repeat the same ideas, facts, myths, etc. over time, they begin to "define the world" and "legitimize a particular social order."
because commercial television must sell ads to stay in business, it must appeal to a wide audience made up of different types of people. because so many people do watch tv, it creates a "shared conception of reality" among people who, without television, might believe differently.
the media doesn't necessarily tell people what to think, but it does tell them what to think about (bernard cohen, 1963)
chapter on growing up with television: cultivation process
television is the ultimate storyteller. it is "the primary common source of socialization and everyday information."
both elites and common people share the same shows. as the tv shows and other media on television continue to repeat the same ideas, facts, myths, etc. over time, they begin to "define the world" and "legitimize a particular social order."
because commercial television must sell ads to stay in business, it must appeal to a wide audience made up of different types of people. because so many people do watch tv, it creates a "shared conception of reality" among people who, without television, might believe differently.
samedi 8 décembre 2007
the new science of happiness
Wallis, C. (2005, January 9). The new science of happiness. Time. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from http://www.time.com
so you can become happier by living in the moment, so to say. if you're hanging out with your family, then enjoy hanging out with your family. don't worry about what work you should be doing or whatever.
you can also become happier by getting more pleasure out of life. it should be noted that this article points out that pleasure is a different thing from happiness...pleasure is a temporary emotion, like what we feel when we find a dollar on the street or when we meet someone famous. this will not raise our overall happiness. anyway, you get more pleasure out of life by really enjoying those good moments...a few researchers, including sonja something from UCR, have suggested the "gratitude journal," where a person writes daily or weekly about the good things in their life. these can either be things they're thankful for or things that went well in the day.
the third way to become happier is to find ways to make life more meaningful...volunteering in a soup kitchen, donating to darfur, figuring out a way you can make the world better, whatever. getting involved in something bigger than yourself can help you feel like a better person.
(prof Christopher Peterson at the University of Michigan)
University of Illinois psychologist Edward Diener found the following things about happiness:
1. additional income does little to raise your sense of satisfaction with life
2. being smarter or having more education doesn't make you happier, either
3. sipping from the fountain of youth won't make you happier. in fact, older people are consistently more satisfied with life than younger people.
4. married people are generally happier than singles, but that may be because they were happier to begin with
5. sunny days don't make people happier, either. californians aren't necessarily happier than oaklahomans just because of that fact.
6. having religious faith seems to make people happier, but it's difficult to say if that's due to God or the community aspect.
7. spending time with friends and family overwhelmingly makes a person happier.
"A 2002 study conducted at the University of Illinois by Diener and Seligman found that the most salient characteristics shared by the 10% of students with the highest levels of happiness and the fewest signs of depression were their strong ties to friends and family and commitment to spending time with them."
seligman finds that there are three dimensions to happiness: pleasure, engagement (connection to family, friends, work, hobbies), and meaning (using your personal strengths to better something bigger than you).
in 1996 University of Minnesota researcher David Lykken published a paper looking at the role of genes in determining one's sense of satisfaction in life. he found that genes determine about 50% of our satisfaction with life. this is to say that we are sort of "born with a happiness level." other research has confirmed that this is largely true: we do have a happiness level. no matter what happens to us, we will return to that level. unless we take an active role in making ourselves happier, with things like a gratitude journal and positive psychology.
...positive-psychology movement, which has put a premium on research showing you can raise your level of happiness. For Seligman and like-minded researchers, that involves working on the three components of happiness--getting more pleasure out of life (which can be done by savoring sensory experiences...), becoming more engaged in what you do and finding ways of making your life feel more meaningful.
so you can become happier by living in the moment, so to say. if you're hanging out with your family, then enjoy hanging out with your family. don't worry about what work you should be doing or whatever.
you can also become happier by getting more pleasure out of life. it should be noted that this article points out that pleasure is a different thing from happiness...pleasure is a temporary emotion, like what we feel when we find a dollar on the street or when we meet someone famous. this will not raise our overall happiness. anyway, you get more pleasure out of life by really enjoying those good moments...a few researchers, including sonja something from UCR, have suggested the "gratitude journal," where a person writes daily or weekly about the good things in their life. these can either be things they're thankful for or things that went well in the day.
the third way to become happier is to find ways to make life more meaningful...volunteering in a soup kitchen, donating to darfur, figuring out a way you can make the world better, whatever. getting involved in something bigger than yourself can help you feel like a better person.
Seligman's biggest recommendation for lasting happiness is to figure out (courtesy of his website, reflectivehappiness.com your strengths and find new ways to deploy them.
"Giving makes you feel good about yourself," says Peterson. "When you're volunteering, you're distracting yourself from your own existence, and that's beneficial. More fuzzily, giving puts meaning into your life. You have a sense of purpose because you matter to someone else." Virtually all the happiness exercises being tested by positive psychologists, he says, make people feel more connected to others.
(prof Christopher Peterson at the University of Michigan)
University of Illinois psychologist Edward Diener found the following things about happiness:
1. additional income does little to raise your sense of satisfaction with life
2. being smarter or having more education doesn't make you happier, either
3. sipping from the fountain of youth won't make you happier. in fact, older people are consistently more satisfied with life than younger people.
4. married people are generally happier than singles, but that may be because they were happier to begin with
5. sunny days don't make people happier, either. californians aren't necessarily happier than oaklahomans just because of that fact.
6. having religious faith seems to make people happier, but it's difficult to say if that's due to God or the community aspect.
7. spending time with friends and family overwhelmingly makes a person happier.
"A 2002 study conducted at the University of Illinois by Diener and Seligman found that the most salient characteristics shared by the 10% of students with the highest levels of happiness and the fewest signs of depression were their strong ties to friends and family and commitment to spending time with them."
seligman finds that there are three dimensions to happiness: pleasure, engagement (connection to family, friends, work, hobbies), and meaning (using your personal strengths to better something bigger than you).
in 1996 University of Minnesota researcher David Lykken published a paper looking at the role of genes in determining one's sense of satisfaction in life. he found that genes determine about 50% of our satisfaction with life. this is to say that we are sort of "born with a happiness level." other research has confirmed that this is largely true: we do have a happiness level. no matter what happens to us, we will return to that level. unless we take an active role in making ourselves happier, with things like a gratitude journal and positive psychology.
jeudi 6 décembre 2007
In Pursuit of Happiness Research
Wilkinson, W. (2007, April 11). In pursuit of happiness research: Is it reliable? What does it imply for policy? In The Cato institute. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://www.cato.org
Wilkinson argues that we should tax the rich. There should be a tax that "reduces the benefits of monetary labor" will encourage everyone together to stop working so hard. with all that extra time, we could hang out with friends and family and spend time engaging in hobbies we actually enjoy. (other research has shown that it is not money or material things that make us happiest; instead, it's our relationships we form with other people that boost our happiness)
Wilkinson argues that we should tax the rich. There should be a tax that "reduces the benefits of monetary labor" will encourage everyone together to stop working so hard. with all that extra time, we could hang out with friends and family and spend time engaging in hobbies we actually enjoy. (other research has shown that it is not money or material things that make us happiest; instead, it's our relationships we form with other people that boost our happiness)
The Hippies Were Right all Along about Happiness
Oswald, A. (2006, January 18). The hippies were right all along about happiness. Financial Times.Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://www.ft.com
--people today are not happier than their (poorer) parents and grandparents were years ago.
this is to say that how happy you are depends on how rich your neighbors/peers are. if they get the newest game system and you don't, you will be sad. if you start to earn more money than them, you will be happy. we compare ourselves with other people to find out if we're actually happy.
i already have this research, but this just backs it up more.
p.s. andrew oswald is an economics professor at warwick university
--people today are not happier than their (poorer) parents and grandparents were years ago.
Research last year showed that happiness levels depend inversely on the earnings levels of a person’s neighbours. Prosperity next door makes you dissatisfied. It is relative income that matters: when everyone in a society gets wealthier, average wellbeing stays the same.
this is to say that how happy you are depends on how rich your neighbors/peers are. if they get the newest game system and you don't, you will be sad. if you start to earn more money than them, you will be happy. we compare ourselves with other people to find out if we're actually happy.
i already have this research, but this just backs it up more.
p.s. andrew oswald is an economics professor at warwick university
"a growing gap between the savers and the save-nots"
Johnston, D. C. (1999, March 21). A growing gap between the savers and the save-nots. The New York Times. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com
(Prof George Lowenstein)
in my words: the media tells soon-to-be retirees that they need to worry about the money the will--or won't--have after they quit. so then those 60-somethings get real worked up over whether they've saved enough for retirement or if they'll have to keep working until they die.
their sense of reality, however, has been distorted by the media. most people have, in fact, saved enough for retirement. they adjust to new situations in the lives and the money thing is less of an issue than they expected, despite what the media and other financial advisers told them.
in this case, the media made them worry unnecessarily, which caused them unhappiness. the media took something that was no big deal and, to make it newsworthy, made it seem as if it were a big tragedy. the media has this tendency of sensationalizing issues so that people will pay attention. this can cause viewers to see the world as a dramatic, sometimes awful place. this can cause distress and unhappiness. with the sensationalization of media, then, we can say that people have become unhappier.
infotainment! that's what that's called. mention that.
people worry more about having enough to retire in the five years before they stop working than after they quit.
''The financial press and the mutual fund industry are telling people that you need to save a lot, that you should be worried, and people work themselves into a state of anxiety,'' Professor Lowenstein said. ''But even though income drops after retirement and consumption drops even more, people find it is not nearly as bad as they expected. People adapt to adverse circumstances much faster than they expect.''
(Prof George Lowenstein)
in my words: the media tells soon-to-be retirees that they need to worry about the money the will--or won't--have after they quit. so then those 60-somethings get real worked up over whether they've saved enough for retirement or if they'll have to keep working until they die.
their sense of reality, however, has been distorted by the media. most people have, in fact, saved enough for retirement. they adjust to new situations in the lives and the money thing is less of an issue than they expected, despite what the media and other financial advisers told them.
in this case, the media made them worry unnecessarily, which caused them unhappiness. the media took something that was no big deal and, to make it newsworthy, made it seem as if it were a big tragedy. the media has this tendency of sensationalizing issues so that people will pay attention. this can cause viewers to see the world as a dramatic, sometimes awful place. this can cause distress and unhappiness. with the sensationalization of media, then, we can say that people have become unhappier.
infotainment! that's what that's called. mention that.
mercredi 5 décembre 2007
advertisers playing to happiness
advertisers today are smart people. before freud and bernays, companies would advertise the usefulness of their product only, and people would buy it if they needed it. however, bernays revolutionized the advertising market because he found that he and advertisers could make people THINK they needed things they had no use for. if they played to people's emotions, they could convince them they needed to have not just any purse, but a certain brand name purse. they could make people feel unsatisfied and unhappy if they didn't have a specific product.
global companies recognize this method of advertising today, and use it to their advantage. Coca cola, for example, has capitalized on the Christmas market. They have made themselves synonymous with Christmastime. If you drink a Coke around Christmas, you can be happy like those cute polar bears in their commercials. Jolly Santa drinks Coke, so you can be jolly when you drink Coke, too. The advertisers play to the consumers' happiness.
There has been much research on the new field of positive psychology. In short, it is a focus on the good things in life rather than the problems (explain this more, and talk about Seligman). Traditional psychology focuses on fixing problems in life and figuring out why people become mentally ill or disturbed. Until recently, nobody had really done much research into the happy individual. Now some psychologists are proponents of positive psychology, and claim that traditional psychological methods may be failing because they focus too much on negative aspects of life.
Advertisers, it seems, have taken this advice to heart. Mastercard ads, for example. They give a whole host of things that cost money. For example, there's one that aired in London that shows an arrivals gate at an airport and families, friends and lovers reuniting. While the loved ones are hugging, a caption at the bottom of the screen tells how much the flight tickets cost. At the end, though, it says, "Spending Christmas together: priceless." The screen Mastercard logo the appears, but only for a brief two seconds. This ad shows the viewer families and friends getting together and sharing a special moment. It can be hypothesized that this causes the viewer to think about his or her own family, especially around the holiday season. You'll notice that the ad wasn't about Mastercard until the very end. It was about reuniting and being happy in the arms of someone you love. It was playing to the viewers positive emotions. Mastercard has flipped the table; instead of being associated with money, they have now linked themselves with happy families. This is not to say that immediately following this ad, the viewer will apply for a Mastercard and start spending. Instead, the point I am making is that Mastercard has associated itself with happiness and joy. In the future, when faced with deciding between Mastercard and a competitor, a consumer may be influenced by the ad and go with Mastercard because of the positive, happy ad. Mastercard advertisers have used positive psychology to make the consumer happy while watching the ad, and therefore associate their product with satisfaction.
global companies recognize this method of advertising today, and use it to their advantage. Coca cola, for example, has capitalized on the Christmas market. They have made themselves synonymous with Christmastime. If you drink a Coke around Christmas, you can be happy like those cute polar bears in their commercials. Jolly Santa drinks Coke, so you can be jolly when you drink Coke, too. The advertisers play to the consumers' happiness.
There has been much research on the new field of positive psychology. In short, it is a focus on the good things in life rather than the problems (explain this more, and talk about Seligman). Traditional psychology focuses on fixing problems in life and figuring out why people become mentally ill or disturbed. Until recently, nobody had really done much research into the happy individual. Now some psychologists are proponents of positive psychology, and claim that traditional psychological methods may be failing because they focus too much on negative aspects of life.
Advertisers, it seems, have taken this advice to heart. Mastercard ads, for example. They give a whole host of things that cost money. For example, there's one that aired in London that shows an arrivals gate at an airport and families, friends and lovers reuniting. While the loved ones are hugging, a caption at the bottom of the screen tells how much the flight tickets cost. At the end, though, it says, "Spending Christmas together: priceless." The screen Mastercard logo the appears, but only for a brief two seconds. This ad shows the viewer families and friends getting together and sharing a special moment. It can be hypothesized that this causes the viewer to think about his or her own family, especially around the holiday season. You'll notice that the ad wasn't about Mastercard until the very end. It was about reuniting and being happy in the arms of someone you love. It was playing to the viewers positive emotions. Mastercard has flipped the table; instead of being associated with money, they have now linked themselves with happy families. This is not to say that immediately following this ad, the viewer will apply for a Mastercard and start spending. Instead, the point I am making is that Mastercard has associated itself with happiness and joy. In the future, when faced with deciding between Mastercard and a competitor, a consumer may be influenced by the ad and go with Mastercard because of the positive, happy ad. Mastercard advertisers have used positive psychology to make the consumer happy while watching the ad, and therefore associate their product with satisfaction.
mercredi 28 novembre 2007
Positive Psychology: An Introduction
Seligman, AuthorMartin E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An Introduction . American Psychologist. 55, 5-14.
(myers= david myers, and he published this info in 2000)
People high on optimism tend to have better moods, to be more persevering and successful, and to experience better physical health.
The other two candidates for promoting happiness Myers considers are economic growth and income (not much there, after a minimum threshold of affluence is passed) and close personal relationships (a strong association).
(myers= david myers, and he published this info in 2000)
But perhaps we are blinded to the survival value of positive emotions precisely because they are so important. Like the fish who is unaware of the water in which it swims, we take for granted a certain amount of hope, love, enjoyment, and trust because these are the very conditions that allow us to go on living.
Cultures may turn their attention to creativity, virtue, and the highest qualities in life only when they are stable, prosperous and at peace. Athens during the 5th century B.C., Florence of the 15th century, and Victorian England are examples of cultures that focused on positive qualities.
lundi 26 novembre 2007
Balkan nations put cultural stars on a pedestal
Bilefsky, D. (2007, November 11). Balkans nations put cultural stars on a pedestal. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from http://www.iht.com
In Zitiste, Serbia, a statue of Rocky (yes, as in Rocky Balboa from Rocky I, II, III, IV, V, VI....) has been put up, only 12 miles away from the future site of a Tarzan sculpture in the village of Medja. The Tarzan statue will commemerate Olympic swimmer and actor Johnny Weismuller.
In Mostar, a Bosnian city scarred by war between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, a statue of Bruce Lee was built to commemerate the actor, who "brought cultures together and embodieded the fight for justice."
In Cacak (southwest of Blegrade), a statue of former topless model Samantha Fox will be built soon, say city officials. She captured the attention of the locals when she performed her hit song, "Touch Me (I Want Your Body)."
"But Bojan Marceta, a 28-year-old local cameraman who raised €5,000, or about $7,300, to commission the statue, said Rocky was a universal hero and far more deserving of respect than Serbia's own recent leadership.
"Nobody from the wars of the 1990s or from the former Yugoslavia deserves a monument, because all our leaders did was to prevent us from progressing," said Marceta, who celebrated the unveiling of the statue in August with fireworks at a public concert. "My generation can't find role models, so we have to look elsewhere. Hollywood can provide an answer.""
(My country has not provided heros to build statues of, so we have to find heros elsewhere. Thank you, Hollywood.)
"Dragan Pusara, an assistant to the mayor, said he hoped that the brawny likeness of Weissmuller, the town's native son, would bring luck and investment to Medja after devastating floods.
He said Tarzan was a fitting icon for Serbs because he had been put in the jungle with nothing and, against all odds, managed to survive. Tarzan, he added, would transcend the ethnic divisions of Medja - home to Serbs, Hungarians and Serbs of German descent - because "he belongs to everyone."
"After World War II, hundreds of displaced people arrived here with their families and one piece of luggage, and they needed to be strong to survive just like Tarzan," Pusara said.""
Some sociologists say that the Balkan states suffered an identity crisis after the wars in the 1990s, when it was hard to tell the differene between opressors and victims. In Hollywood movies, it's very obvious who the heros and villians are, so it's easy to pick a hero to make a statue of.
In Zitiste, Serbia, a statue of Rocky (yes, as in Rocky Balboa from Rocky I, II, III, IV, V, VI....) has been put up, only 12 miles away from the future site of a Tarzan sculpture in the village of Medja. The Tarzan statue will commemerate Olympic swimmer and actor Johnny Weismuller.
In Mostar, a Bosnian city scarred by war between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, a statue of Bruce Lee was built to commemerate the actor, who "brought cultures together and embodieded the fight for justice."
In Cacak (southwest of Blegrade), a statue of former topless model Samantha Fox will be built soon, say city officials. She captured the attention of the locals when she performed her hit song, "Touch Me (I Want Your Body)."
"But Bojan Marceta, a 28-year-old local cameraman who raised €5,000, or about $7,300, to commission the statue, said Rocky was a universal hero and far more deserving of respect than Serbia's own recent leadership.
"Nobody from the wars of the 1990s or from the former Yugoslavia deserves a monument, because all our leaders did was to prevent us from progressing," said Marceta, who celebrated the unveiling of the statue in August with fireworks at a public concert. "My generation can't find role models, so we have to look elsewhere. Hollywood can provide an answer.""
(My country has not provided heros to build statues of, so we have to find heros elsewhere. Thank you, Hollywood.)
"Dragan Pusara, an assistant to the mayor, said he hoped that the brawny likeness of Weissmuller, the town's native son, would bring luck and investment to Medja after devastating floods.
He said Tarzan was a fitting icon for Serbs because he had been put in the jungle with nothing and, against all odds, managed to survive. Tarzan, he added, would transcend the ethnic divisions of Medja - home to Serbs, Hungarians and Serbs of German descent - because "he belongs to everyone."
"After World War II, hundreds of displaced people arrived here with their families and one piece of luggage, and they needed to be strong to survive just like Tarzan," Pusara said.""
Some sociologists say that the Balkan states suffered an identity crisis after the wars in the 1990s, when it was hard to tell the differene between opressors and victims. In Hollywood movies, it's very obvious who the heros and villians are, so it's easy to pick a hero to make a statue of.
staying happier for longer
Seligman, M., Professor. (2006, May 9). Staying happier for longer. BBC News. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from BBC Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk
This article says that our levels of happiness are generally predetermined, and that life events won't change your happiness levels in the long run. Winning the lottery will give you a temporary high, but won't turn a grouch into a saint. Conversely, a bubbly mother won't be turned into Scrooge if an accident leaves her paralyzed.
Seligman says that simple happiness activities like "three blessings" (writing down three things that went well each day) are most useful in trying to cheer up a person.
"We looked at the effect on severe depression of doing just the first web exercise, three blessings.
In this uncontrolled study, 94% of severely depressed people became less depressed and 92% became happier, with an average symptom relief of a whopping 50% over only 15 days."
"At the end of three months about 10% of the patients with medication or treatment as usual improved, versus 70% of the patients in positive psychotherapy."
"While these exercises increase well being among relatively untroubled people, there is one surprising implication for serious depression: psychotherapy traditionally is where you go to talk about your troubles." (in psychotherapy, you focus on your trouble and hardships; in postive psychology, you focus on the good things. maybe this is why therapy doesn't help everyone)
So, people are happier when they focus on the good things in their life. It follows that, after they write down three good things that happened to them today, they feel happier. If they watch a TV show about happy things, does this allow them to think about the good things in their life? Or do they compare themselves to those on TV and get sad cuz their lives aren't as good? Previous research suggests the latter (that they'll compare and feel less worthy).
This article says that our levels of happiness are generally predetermined, and that life events won't change your happiness levels in the long run. Winning the lottery will give you a temporary high, but won't turn a grouch into a saint. Conversely, a bubbly mother won't be turned into Scrooge if an accident leaves her paralyzed.
Seligman says that simple happiness activities like "three blessings" (writing down three things that went well each day) are most useful in trying to cheer up a person.
"We looked at the effect on severe depression of doing just the first web exercise, three blessings.
In this uncontrolled study, 94% of severely depressed people became less depressed and 92% became happier, with an average symptom relief of a whopping 50% over only 15 days."
"At the end of three months about 10% of the patients with medication or treatment as usual improved, versus 70% of the patients in positive psychotherapy."
"While these exercises increase well being among relatively untroubled people, there is one surprising implication for serious depression: psychotherapy traditionally is where you go to talk about your troubles." (in psychotherapy, you focus on your trouble and hardships; in postive psychology, you focus on the good things. maybe this is why therapy doesn't help everyone)
So, people are happier when they focus on the good things in their life. It follows that, after they write down three good things that happened to them today, they feel happier. If they watch a TV show about happy things, does this allow them to think about the good things in their life? Or do they compare themselves to those on TV and get sad cuz their lives aren't as good? Previous research suggests the latter (that they'll compare and feel less worthy).
vendredi 23 novembre 2007
Happiness test
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4785402.stm
test designed by Professor Ed Diener, University of Illinois
People who score high on life satisfaction tend to have close and supportive family and friends, whereas those who do not have close friends and family are more likely to be dissatisfied.
Another factor that influences the life satisfaction of most people is work or school, or performance in an important role such as homemaker or grandparent.
A third factor that influences the life satisfaction of most people is personal - satisfaction with the self, religious or spiritual life, learning and growth, and leisure.
When a person tends to be chronically dissatisfied, they should look within themselves and ask whether they need to develop more positive attitudes to life and the world.
in my own words
-it has been proved time time and again that personal relationships make us happier than most everything else. if our family connections are strong and we have a good set of friends, we will be happiest.
-in america, we put a strong emphasis on the individual (though you know you need a source to back this up...). as we export our tv shows, they glorify the individual who doesn't rely on anyone to succeed. this could make people more unhappy, because it encourages them to shun their families. this could be especially detrimental in a culture that emphasizes family first. in this way, globalized media (especially american media) could make people unhappier, because it focuses them on individuality and materialism.
test designed by Professor Ed Diener, University of Illinois
People who score high on life satisfaction tend to have close and supportive family and friends, whereas those who do not have close friends and family are more likely to be dissatisfied.
Another factor that influences the life satisfaction of most people is work or school, or performance in an important role such as homemaker or grandparent.
A third factor that influences the life satisfaction of most people is personal - satisfaction with the self, religious or spiritual life, learning and growth, and leisure.
When a person tends to be chronically dissatisfied, they should look within themselves and ask whether they need to develop more positive attitudes to life and the world.
in my own words
-it has been proved time time and again that personal relationships make us happier than most everything else. if our family connections are strong and we have a good set of friends, we will be happiest.
-in america, we put a strong emphasis on the individual (though you know you need a source to back this up...). as we export our tv shows, they glorify the individual who doesn't rely on anyone to succeed. this could make people more unhappy, because it encourages them to shun their families. this could be especially detrimental in a culture that emphasizes family first. in this way, globalized media (especially american media) could make people unhappier, because it focuses them on individuality and materialism.
mercredi 21 novembre 2007
The science of happiness
(from bbc)
Rudin, M. (2006, April 30). The science of happiness. BBC News. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from
BBC Web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk
happiness vs pleasure
-happiness is a state; pleasure is a fleeting feeling
positive psychology
-if you cater to your strengths, then you'll be happier
"politics of happiness" video
reported by mark easton for bbc two's "the happiness formula"
-britain is really rich (richer than ever) but not happier than ever
-lord richard layard (prof of econ, LSE): human relationships are more important, but we've let those deteriorate in the name of increasing income
-england and wales have committees legally bound to try to make their citizens happier
-govt dept with a sole purpose of making the people happier
-layard:picture ads make people want things they don't need/want; makes people feel poorer (layard)
-taxes make us happier; increase well being; (layard) taxes help us not compare to each other cuz they reduce the gap between rich and poor; rich people make poorer people feel bad, so the hand of the govt can fix that;
-david halpern: britian prime minister's advisor
Rudin, M. (2006, April 30). The science of happiness. BBC News. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from
BBC Web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk
happiness vs pleasure
-happiness is a state; pleasure is a fleeting feeling
positive psychology
-if you cater to your strengths, then you'll be happier
"politics of happiness" video
reported by mark easton for bbc two's "the happiness formula"
-britain is really rich (richer than ever) but not happier than ever
-lord richard layard (prof of econ, LSE): human relationships are more important, but we've let those deteriorate in the name of increasing income
-england and wales have committees legally bound to try to make their citizens happier
-govt dept with a sole purpose of making the people happier
-layard:picture ads make people want things they don't need/want; makes people feel poorer (layard)
-taxes make us happier; increase well being; (layard) taxes help us not compare to each other cuz they reduce the gap between rich and poor; rich people make poorer people feel bad, so the hand of the govt can fix that;
-david halpern: britian prime minister's advisor
"happiness machine"
(2002). Happiness machines In A. Curtis (Producer), The century of the self. United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Company. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from http://www.bbc.co.uk
-Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) was the first to develop the idea that if you linked products to emotional desires (rather than necessity), you could convince people to buy things because they WANTED them, not because they needed them.
-"Irrelevent objects could become powerful emotional symbols of how you wanted to be seen by others." (this quote related to women smoking cigarettes. It was taboo for women to smoke cigarettes because they were a symbol of man--a penis, to be more specific. Bernays launched a campaign that promoted cigarettes instead as a 'freedom torch' that could give women power. The cigarettes became a symbol more than a product.)
-This can be related to the Hollywood statues in Serbia. The people there cannot find heros in their own political figures, so instead they look to Hollywood. The Serbians want to be seen as powerful, heroic, smart, etc., so when they watch those characters in movies, they feel just that. They also may want to show the world that they are on the same playiing field as the US, so they import some of their figures.
-advertisements promoted cars/shoes/fancy things as necessity before Bernays revolutionized the market. He suggested that companies play to people's desires. He said man's desire needed to be more than his needs.
-Introduced product placement
-1927: The US had officially become a consumer nation
-if you can keep stimulating hte irrational self (driving people to buy things they DESIRE, not that they need), then leadership can keep doing what it wants to do
-Bernays' power fell after stock market crash, because people only had money to buy what they needed (and not even that).
-Gallup and Roper said that people could be trusted to act rationally if you didnt manipulate their emotions
-so this says that media DOES have an affect on people's emotions, whether they notice or not
-Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) was the first to develop the idea that if you linked products to emotional desires (rather than necessity), you could convince people to buy things because they WANTED them, not because they needed them.
-"Irrelevent objects could become powerful emotional symbols of how you wanted to be seen by others." (this quote related to women smoking cigarettes. It was taboo for women to smoke cigarettes because they were a symbol of man--a penis, to be more specific. Bernays launched a campaign that promoted cigarettes instead as a 'freedom torch' that could give women power. The cigarettes became a symbol more than a product.)
-This can be related to the Hollywood statues in Serbia. The people there cannot find heros in their own political figures, so instead they look to Hollywood. The Serbians want to be seen as powerful, heroic, smart, etc., so when they watch those characters in movies, they feel just that. They also may want to show the world that they are on the same playiing field as the US, so they import some of their figures.
-advertisements promoted cars/shoes/fancy things as necessity before Bernays revolutionized the market. He suggested that companies play to people's desires. He said man's desire needed to be more than his needs.
-Introduced product placement
-1927: The US had officially become a consumer nation
-if you can keep stimulating hte irrational self (driving people to buy things they DESIRE, not that they need), then leadership can keep doing what it wants to do
-Bernays' power fell after stock market crash, because people only had money to buy what they needed (and not even that).
-Gallup and Roper said that people could be trusted to act rationally if you didnt manipulate their emotions
-so this says that media DOES have an affect on people's emotions, whether they notice or not
lundi 19 novembre 2007
presentation time
or, better titled, "here goes nothin"
1. research question: how does globalization affect happiness? if a country is more "globalized"--economically, politically, culturally--do the people generally satisfied with life? On the individual level, are people happier as they become more globalized?
2. the research i've done so far has given me conflicted results. an essay by robert wright (a political scientist, i believe) says that, for the poorest countries in the world, globalization will in fact increase happiness. the logic behind this is as follows: as a country becomes more globalized economically (opens its markets), it becomes richer. in fact, the world is becoming richer as a whole. up to a point, money does buy happiness. this point is about $10,000 per person, and it's because much of that money goes toward increasing democracy and boosting social programs like healthcare for all. so for the poorest countries in the world , globalization does lead to happiness.
3. so what happens when you've got your democracy and healthcare and you've got a bit more money? well now, no matter how rich your country gets, you will not get significantly happier, says wright. individually, as you get richer, you start comparing yourself with your new "peers." for example, if you get an initial pay raise at your job, you'll feel superior to the people you work with. however, with time, you will start to compare yourself to people who make MORE money than you, and you'll feel inferior and unhappy again.
this can be connected to how global media works. for example, let's look at how american sitcoms get exported to, say, china. while china is a rich nation, individual citizens are not necessarily rich. if they see a show like gossip girl, where everyone has tons of money, they may start comparing themselves with the cast on gossip girl. they may get jealous and unhappy that they don't have the sorts of things blair and serena can afford. globalized media, then, can make the "have nots" unhappy.
this idea of comparing yourself with a new set of people is supported by eduardo porter in his ny times column, too.
1. research question: how does globalization affect happiness? if a country is more "globalized"--economically, politically, culturally--do the people generally satisfied with life? On the individual level, are people happier as they become more globalized?
2. the research i've done so far has given me conflicted results. an essay by robert wright (a political scientist, i believe) says that, for the poorest countries in the world, globalization will in fact increase happiness. the logic behind this is as follows: as a country becomes more globalized economically (opens its markets), it becomes richer. in fact, the world is becoming richer as a whole. up to a point, money does buy happiness. this point is about $10,000 per person, and it's because much of that money goes toward increasing democracy and boosting social programs like healthcare for all. so for the poorest countries in the world , globalization does lead to happiness.
3. so what happens when you've got your democracy and healthcare and you've got a bit more money? well now, no matter how rich your country gets, you will not get significantly happier, says wright. individually, as you get richer, you start comparing yourself with your new "peers." for example, if you get an initial pay raise at your job, you'll feel superior to the people you work with. however, with time, you will start to compare yourself to people who make MORE money than you, and you'll feel inferior and unhappy again.
this can be connected to how global media works. for example, let's look at how american sitcoms get exported to, say, china. while china is a rich nation, individual citizens are not necessarily rich. if they see a show like gossip girl, where everyone has tons of money, they may start comparing themselves with the cast on gossip girl. they may get jealous and unhappy that they don't have the sorts of things blair and serena can afford. globalized media, then, can make the "have nots" unhappy.
this idea of comparing yourself with a new set of people is supported by eduardo porter in his ny times column, too.
will globalization make you happy?
Wright, R. (2000, September/October). Will globalization make you happy? Foreign Policy. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://foreignpolicy.com
The upshot is that, while poor nations seem to breed unhappiness, very rich nations don't necessarily breed happiness.
There is, on the one hand, a clear connection between a nations per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and the average happiness of its citizens. But the strength of that connection—in most studies, at least—comes almost entirely from nations in the bottom three fourths of the income scale. Once your nation attains a fairly comfortable standard of living, more income brings little, if any, additional happiness. In the United States between 1975 and 1995, real per capita GDP grew by 43 percent, but the average happiness of Americans didn't budge.
so it seems like countries reach a plateau of happiness; once you earn that minimal amount (in 2000, around $10,000) you quit getting happier. so just because a country is getting richer doesn't mean it's getting happier.
do you trust people more or less on the internet?
third world countries who are willing to open up their markets--and, thus, cultures--are the fastest growing. so as really poor countries become more globalized, they become happier--to a certain extent (that $10,000 point).
globalization (in the economic sense) affects EVERYONE, not just the big execs. everyone gets happier.
we already talked about this.
obviously, the amount of money you have in itself does not make you happier. if it did, it would be easy to predict happiness just based on a person's wage. we determine how happy we are by comparing ourselves with others. when i earn an extra dollar an hour, i'm happier because i'm earning more compared to my neighbor. however, when i look around in my new group of "peers," i see that i still earn less than some others, so i'm back at square one happiness.
this is ONLY in poor countries. when the citizens in a poor country globalize, they see the western standard of living. because they compare to that and want to be like that (it is, after all, "better"), they work toward better healthcare and more democracy. this isn't bad for anyone, though.
alright, i can't think hard enough for this one right now
real people make us happiest, not those characters on our favorite sitcom. talking in a chat room is nice, but won't make us ecstatic.
poor nations struggle to adjust from agrarian to modern, which is a very expensive transition. i can't think right now.
go figure.
what i said earlier.
yay for dolphin wallpaper haters united!
so giving things to people makes us happier. huh.
(Michael Hagerty--"world envy" as people travel more and borders disappear) this is what prof kim said! anyway, when you see american television, you see a rich nation "up close and personal"...a nation like, say, nigeria will be like "oh, man, i want that!" and will get really sad that they don't have it. again, the comparison thing.
transnational class consciousness could begin to deter war among nations.
world peace, bitches.
whoa, that's a lot of quotes.
The upshot is that, while poor nations seem to breed unhappiness, very rich nations don't necessarily breed happiness.
There is, on the one hand, a clear connection between a nations per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and the average happiness of its citizens. But the strength of that connection—in most studies, at least—comes almost entirely from nations in the bottom three fourths of the income scale. Once your nation attains a fairly comfortable standard of living, more income brings little, if any, additional happiness. In the United States between 1975 and 1995, real per capita GDP grew by 43 percent, but the average happiness of Americans didn't budge.
so it seems like countries reach a plateau of happiness; once you earn that minimal amount (in 2000, around $10,000) you quit getting happier. so just because a country is getting richer doesn't mean it's getting happier.
Nations with high levels of trust tend to be happier, and Scandinavians, according to surveys, are inordinately trusting.
do you trust people more or less on the internet?
developing nations with the most open economies—the nations most thoroughly plugged into the global market system—grow the fastest.
third world countries who are willing to open up their markets--and, thus, cultures--are the fastest growing. so as really poor countries become more globalized, they become happier--to a certain extent (that $10,000 point).
Tracking nations with the most open, most globalized economies over the last several decades, they found that, as national income grew, the fraction of the economic pie going to the bottom fifth of the income scale didnt shrink. The rising tide indeed seemed to lift all boats.
globalization (in the economic sense) affects EVERYONE, not just the big execs. everyone gets happier.
Yet, in terms of psychological payoff—in terms of actual happiness—the benefits of globalization would seem to go overwhelmingly to the world's lower classes, to nations with a per capita annual income under $10,000. Only at that level of national income does money reliably bring happiness.
we already talked about this.
To the extent that this is true—that our happiness comes from comparing our station in life with that of other people—then within a society, one person's gain is another person's loss.
obviously, the amount of money you have in itself does not make you happier. if it did, it would be easy to predict happiness just based on a person's wage. we determine how happy we are by comparing ourselves with others. when i earn an extra dollar an hour, i'm happier because i'm earning more compared to my neighbor. however, when i look around in my new group of "peers," i see that i still earn less than some others, so i'm back at square one happiness.
because a poor nations growing GDP does bring markedly more happiness, the game among citizens is not entirely zero-sum. As people struggle to raise their standard of living, they are attaining things—decent nutrition, healthcare—that raise their happiness level without reducing anyone else's.
this is ONLY in poor countries. when the citizens in a poor country globalize, they see the western standard of living. because they compare to that and want to be like that (it is, after all, "better"), they work toward better healthcare and more democracy. this isn't bad for anyone, though.
Cultural lag happens when material culture changes so fast that immaterial culture (government, social norms, moral strictures) falls dangerously behind.
alright, i can't think hard enough for this one right now
Strong and intimate social bonds are deeply conducive to happiness.
real people make us happiest, not those characters on our favorite sitcom. talking in a chat room is nice, but won't make us ecstatic.
today's developing nations are facing this adjustment in fast forward: Some are starting out more agrarian than the United States was in the late 19th century and are being asked to move not just into the industrial age, but into the electronic age—an age that even "modern" nations are struggling to cope with.
poor nations struggle to adjust from agrarian to modern, which is a very expensive transition. i can't think right now.
People who watch lots of TV, by the way, are unusually unhappy, though that could be because unhappiness leads people to watch TV.
go figure.
One reason is that cybercafes were not part of the environment in which Homo sapiens evolved. We most naturally get social gratification from face-to-face contact, not from sentences on a computer screen.
what i said earlier.
As more and more powerful means of communication become cheaper and cheaper, groups of people with common interests will find it easier and easier to organize.
yay for dolphin wallpaper haters united!
teenagers who were especially concerned with the welfare of others were especially happy. Apparently, giving things to people can be a non-zero-sum game.
so giving things to people makes us happier. huh.
To the extent that happiness depends on how your social station compares with that of your neighbors, the happiness of poor nations might suffer. Upon seeing rich nations up close and personal, people in the developing world could start using them as a reference point and then feel deflated by the comparison.
(Michael Hagerty--"world envy" as people travel more and borders disappear) this is what prof kim said! anyway, when you see american television, you see a rich nation "up close and personal"...a nation like, say, nigeria will be like "oh, man, i want that!" and will get really sad that they don't have it. again, the comparison thing.
transnational class consciousness could begin to deter war among nations.
world peace, bitches.
whoa, that's a lot of quotes.
"all they are saying is give happiness a chance"
Porter, E. (2007, November 12). All they are saying is give happiness a chance [Editorial]. New York Times, opinion. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com
this column is a bit off topic (and is just a column, not real hard evidence), so i might not use it much, but it makes for a good starting point. it points out that money can't buy happiness, but the government/society still focuses on money disproportionately. the author instead recommends that the government develop policies that will promote the nation's happiness. he points out that happiness comes from things like spending time with friends and family, not from getting more money. because of this, we should be given more vacation time, more time to spend with the ones we love doing the things we love.
so how can i use this for my paper? gosh, that's where i'll actually have to think. i think i'll pull in the info that i quoted...that once we become a "have," we become jealous of a new set of people. while, for a short while, we might feel superior to our peers, we'll just find a new set of people to compare ourselves to.
when we watch TV, we find a new set of people to compare ourselves to. those guys on "friends," sure do have a lot of fun, don't they? and all they do all day is drink coffee and clean their apartments...i wish i could do that. so maybe, when you see a show (reality or not), you find a set of people to compare yourself to. you get jealous because your life isn't as sweet as theirs. you get upset. so watching tv could make you less happy.
that's not a reach, right? ugh..
"But while money boosts happiness, the effect doesn’t last. We just become envious of a new, richer set of people than before. Satisfaction soon settles back to its prior level, as we adapt to changed circumstances and set our expectations to a higher level."
this column is a bit off topic (and is just a column, not real hard evidence), so i might not use it much, but it makes for a good starting point. it points out that money can't buy happiness, but the government/society still focuses on money disproportionately. the author instead recommends that the government develop policies that will promote the nation's happiness. he points out that happiness comes from things like spending time with friends and family, not from getting more money. because of this, we should be given more vacation time, more time to spend with the ones we love doing the things we love.
so how can i use this for my paper? gosh, that's where i'll actually have to think. i think i'll pull in the info that i quoted...that once we become a "have," we become jealous of a new set of people. while, for a short while, we might feel superior to our peers, we'll just find a new set of people to compare ourselves to.
when we watch TV, we find a new set of people to compare ourselves to. those guys on "friends," sure do have a lot of fun, don't they? and all they do all day is drink coffee and clean their apartments...i wish i could do that. so maybe, when you see a show (reality or not), you find a set of people to compare yourself to. you get jealous because your life isn't as sweet as theirs. you get upset. so watching tv could make you less happy.
that's not a reach, right? ugh..
jeudi 8 novembre 2007
a new direction
how about happiness itself? hmmm yes i like this.
Advanced cinematherapy : the girl's guide to finding happiness one movie at a time / Nancy Peske and Beverly West.
^^look at this book in the american library in paris
Advanced cinematherapy : the girl's guide to finding happiness one movie at a time / Nancy Peske and Beverly West.
^^look at this book in the american library in paris
vendredi 12 octobre 2007
sex on the internet: observations and implications for internet sex addiction
by mark griffiths
nottingham trent university, united kingdom
http://www.jstor.org/view/00224499/ap060147/06a00080/0?currentResult=00224499%2bap060147%2b06a00080%2b0%2cFF07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAdvancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26q0%3Dinternet%26f0%3D%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Deveryday%2Blife%26f1%3D%26c1%3DAND%26wc%3Don%26sd%3D2000%26ed%3D2007%26la%3D
^that probably won't work...i found it thru jstor, so look there again.
nottingham trent university, united kingdom
http://www.jstor.org/view/00224499/ap060147/06a00080/0?currentResult=00224499%2bap060147%2b06a00080%2b0%2cFF07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAdvancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26q0%3Dinternet%26f0%3D%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Deveryday%2Blife%26f1%3D%26c1%3DAND%26wc%3Don%26sd%3D2000%26ed%3D2007%26la%3D
^that probably won't work...i found it thru jstor, so look there again.
ideas? anyone?
so i keep tossing around ideas for this media globalization class, and i just can't decide.
today's idea has to do with teenager's use of the internet to "grow up." now, of course, that's too broad. maybe something having to do with sex...how much kids know about sex and at what age, and how that relates to their internet usage. look at how teens in the US perceive sex, how much they know about it by the time they graduate high school (too late? by the time they get to high school?) vs kids in, let's say, china. or maybe those two countries are too different...their perception of sex will have to do not only with the internet, but with cultural norms. OH what might be interesting is not to look at same age in different countries but diff age in same countries...oh, but then that's not globalization. dumb me.
anyway, here's an article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/business/media/03teens.html
it's about teenagers with blogs. it's pretty general and might not give me anything more than a couple stats, but it's a good place to start.
today's idea has to do with teenager's use of the internet to "grow up." now, of course, that's too broad. maybe something having to do with sex...how much kids know about sex and at what age, and how that relates to their internet usage. look at how teens in the US perceive sex, how much they know about it by the time they graduate high school (too late? by the time they get to high school?) vs kids in, let's say, china. or maybe those two countries are too different...their perception of sex will have to do not only with the internet, but with cultural norms. OH what might be interesting is not to look at same age in different countries but diff age in same countries...oh, but then that's not globalization. dumb me.
anyway, here's an article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/business/media/03teens.html
it's about teenagers with blogs. it's pretty general and might not give me anything more than a couple stats, but it's a good place to start.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
